On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 5:59 AM Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > That seems to bind your mind. The program type is just a programing > 'model' of the bpf. You can choose the best implementation to provide > equal functionality. 'kprobe' in bpf is just a name that you call some > instrumentations which can probe kernel code. No. We're not going to call it "fprobe" or any other name. >From bpf user's pov it's going to be "multi attach kprobe", because this is how everyone got to know kprobes. The 99% usage is at the beginning of the funcs. When users say "kprobe" they don't care how kernel attaches it. The func entry limitation for "multi attach kprobe" is a no-brainer. And we need both "multi attach kprobe" and "multi attach kretprobe" at the same time. It's no go to implement one first and the other some time later.
