On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 4:26 PM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 3:55 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > lsm_cgroup/ is the prefix for BPF_LSM_CGROUP.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 2 ++
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> > index ef7f302e542f..854449dcd072 100644
> > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> > @@ -9027,6 +9027,7 @@ static const struct bpf_sec_def section_defs[] = {
> > SEC_DEF("fmod_ret.s+", TRACING, BPF_MODIFY_RETURN, SEC_ATTACH_BTF | SEC_SLEEPABLE, attach_trace),
> > SEC_DEF("fexit.s+", TRACING, BPF_TRACE_FEXIT, SEC_ATTACH_BTF | SEC_SLEEPABLE, attach_trace),
> > SEC_DEF("freplace+", EXT, 0, SEC_ATTACH_BTF, attach_trace),
> > + SEC_DEF("lsm_cgroup+", LSM, BPF_LSM_CGROUP, SEC_ATTACH_BTF),
>
> we don't do simplistic prefix match anymore, so this doesn't have to
> go before lsm+ (we do prefix match only for legacy SEC_SLOPPY cases).
> So total nit (but wanted to dispel preconception that we need to avoid
> subprefix matches), I'd put this after lsm+
Sure, didn't know the ordering doesn't matter, will do, thanks!
