On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 6:56 PM Hou Tao <houtao1@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Program on writable tracepoint is BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINT_WRITABLE,
> but its attachment is the same as BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINT.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> index da65a1666a5e..981fcdd95bdc 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> @@ -7976,6 +7976,10 @@ static const struct bpf_sec_def section_defs[] = {
> .attach_fn = attach_raw_tp),
> SEC_DEF("raw_tp/", RAW_TRACEPOINT,
> .attach_fn = attach_raw_tp),
> + SEC_DEF("raw_tracepoint_writable/", RAW_TRACEPOINT_WRITABLE,
> + .attach_fn = attach_raw_tp),
> + SEC_DEF("raw_tp_writable/", RAW_TRACEPOINT_WRITABLE,
> + .attach_fn = attach_raw_tp),
_writable is a bit mouthful, maybe we should do the same we did for
"sleepable", just add ".w" suffix? So it will be "raw_tp.w/..."? Or
does anyone feel it's too subtle?
> SEC_DEF("tp_btf/", TRACING,
> .expected_attach_type = BPF_TRACE_RAW_TP,
> .is_attach_btf = true,
> --
> 2.29.2
>
