On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 05:42:31PM -0700, Kui-Feng Lee wrote:
>
> +SEC("fentry/bpf_fentry_test1")
Did we discuss whether it makes sense to specify cookie in the SEC() ?
Probably no one will be using cookie when prog is attached to a specific
function, but with support for poor man regex in SEC the cookie
might be useful?
Would we need a way to specify a set of cookies in SEC()?
Or specify a set of pairs of kernel_func+cookie?
None of it might be worth it.
