On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 10:58 PM Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 09:58:02AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > @@ -84,6 +87,19 @@ static int show_bpf_prog(int id, enum bpf_attach_type attach_type,
> > }
> >
> > attach_type_str = libbpf_bpf_attach_type_str(attach_type);
> > +
> > + if (btf_vmlinux &&
> > + info.attach_btf_id < btf__type_cnt(btf_vmlinux)) {
> > + /* Note, we ignore info.attach_btf_obj_id for now. There
> > + * is no good way to resolve btf_id to vmlinux
> > + * or module btf.
> > + */
> On usage could be using it to get the btf_info by bpf_obj_get_info_by_fd.
> Check for the kernel_btf == true and name is "vmlinux".
> To be future proof, it can print <unknown> func for anything
> other than "vmlinux" btf.
Thanks for the suggestion! I'll try to do it and cache btf_vmlinux_id
if it's "vmlinux". What we really need is a way to obtain vmlinux
btf_id and compare it against info.attach_btf_obj_id.
