On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 1:07 PM Quentin Monnet <quentin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 at 18:19, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 11:23 AM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Otherwise, attaching with bpftool doesn't work with strict section names.
> > >
> > > Also:
> > >
> > > - add --legacy option to switch back to pre-1.0 behavior
> > > - print a warning when program fails to load in strict mode to point
> > > to --legacy flag
> > > - by default, don't append / to the section name; in strict
> > > mode it's relevant only for a small subset of prog types
> > >
> >
> > LGTM. I'll wait for Quenting's ack before applying. Thanks!
>
> Looks good as well, thanks Stanislav!
>
> Reviewed-by: Quentin Monnet <quentin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I wonder if we should display some indication ("libbpf_strict"?) in
> the output of "bpftool version", alongside "libbfd" and "skeleton"?
> It's not strictly a feature (and would always be present for newer
> versions), but it could help to check how a bpftool binary will
> behave? (I don't mind taking it as a follow-up.)
Sure, makes sense, I can follow up on that.
