On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 1:33 AM Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 4 Feb 2022, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 8:13 AM Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Now that u[ret]probes can use name-based specification, it makes
> > > sense to add support for auto-attach based on SEC() definition.
> > > The format proposed is
> > >
> > > SEC("u[ret]probe//path/to/prog:[raw_offset|[function_name[+offset]]")
> > >
> > > For example, to trace malloc() in libc:
> > >
> > > SEC("uprobe//usr/lib64/libc.so.6:malloc")
> >
> > I assume that path to library can be relative path as well, right?
> >
> > Also, should be look at trying to locate library in the system if it's
> > specified as "libc"? Or if the binary is "bash", for example. Just
> > bringing this up, because I think it came up before in the context of
> > one of libbpf-tools.
> >
>
> This is a great suggestion for usability, but I'm trying to puzzle
> out how to carry out the location search for cases where the path
> specified is not a relative or absolute path.
>
> A few things we can can do - use search paths from PATH and
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH, with an appended set of standard locations
> such as /usr/bin, /usr/sbin for cases where those environment
> variables are missing or incomplete.
>
> However, when it comes to libraries, do we search in /usr/lib64 or
> /usr/lib? We could use whether the version of libbpf is 64-bit or not I
> suppose, but it's at least conceivable that the user might want to
> instrument a 32-bit library from a 64-bit libbpf. Do you think that
> approach is sufficient, or are there other things we should do? Thanks!
How does dynamic linker do this? When I specify "libbpf.so", is there
some documented algorithm for finding the library? If it's more or
less codified, we could implement something like that. If not, well,
too bad, we can do some useful heuristic, but ultimately there will be
cases that won't be supported. Worst case user will have to specify an
absolute path.
>
> Alan
