On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 7:27 PM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > @@ -5327,6 +5340,7 @@ bpf_object__relocate_data(struct bpf_object *obj, struct bpf_program *prog) > > > ext = &obj->externs[relo->sym_off]; > > > insn[0].src_reg = BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL; > > > insn[0].imm = ext->ksym.kernel_btf_id; > > > + insn[0].off = ext->ksym.offset; > > > > Just a few lines above we use insn[1].imm = > > ext->ksym.kernel_btf_obj_fd; for EXT_KSYM (for variables). Why are you > > inventing a new form if we already have a pretty consistent pattern? > > > > That makes sense. This is all new to me, so I went with what was described in > e6ac2450d6de (bpf: Support bpf program calling kernel function), but I'll rework > it to encode the btf fd like that in the next spin. It also makes the everything > far simpler. Hmm. kfunc call is a call insn. There is no imm[1].
