On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 7:50 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 6:23 PM Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 05:03:40PM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote: > > > > But the problem with going link-only is that I'd have to teach bpftool > > > > to use links for BPF_LSM_CGROUP and it brings a bunch of problems: > > > > * I'd have to pin those links somewhere to make them stick around > > > > * Those pin paths essentially become an API now because "detach" now > > > > depends on them? > > > > * (right now it automatically works with the legacy apis without any > > > > changes) > > > It is already the current API for all links (tracing, cgroup...). It goes > > > away (detach) with the process unless it is pinned. but yeah, it will > > > be a new exception in the "bpftool cgroup" subcommand only for > > > BPF_LSM_CGROUP. > > > > > > If it is an issue with your use case, may be going back to v6 that extends > > > the query bpf_attr with attach_btf_id and support both attach API ? > > [ hit sent too early... ] > > or extending the bpf_prog_info as you also mentioned in the earlier reply. > > It seems all have their ups and downs. > > I'm thinking on putting everything I need into bpf_prog_info and > exporting a list of attach_flags in prog_query (as it's done here in > v7 + add attach_btf_obj_id). > I'm a bit concerned with special casing bpf_lsm_cgroup even more if we > go with a link-only api :-( > I can definitely also put this info into bpf_link_info, but I'm not > sure what's Andrii's preference? I'm assuming he was suggesting to do > either bpf_prog_info or bpf_link_info, but not both? I don't care much, tbh. Whichever makes most sense to you.
