Hi Andrii, On 25/08/2022 19:37, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 8:28 AM Quentin Monnet <quentin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi Wei, >> >> Apologies for failing to answer to your previous email and for the delay >> on this one, I just found out GMail had classified them as spam :(. >> >> So as for your last message, yes: your understanding of my previous >> answer was correct. Thanks for the patch below! Some comments inline. >> > > Do we really want to add such a specific command to bpftool that would > attach BPF object files with programs of only RAW_TRACEPOINT and > RAW_TRACEPOINT_WRITABLE type? > > I could understand if we added something that would be equivalent of > BPF skeleton's auto-attach method. That would make sense in some > contexts, especially for some quick testing and validation, to avoid > writing (a rather simple) user-space loading code. Do you mean loading and attaching in a single step, or keeping the possibility to load first as in the current proposal? > > But "perf attach" for raw_tp programs only? Seem way too limited and > specific, just adding bloat to bpftool, IMO. We already support attaching some kinds of program types through "prog|cgroup|net attach". Here I thought we could add support for other types as a follow-up, but thinking again, you're probably right, it would be best if all the types were supported from the start. Wei, have you looked into how much work it would be to add support for tracepoints, k(ret)probes, u(ret)probes as well? The code should be mostly identical? Quentin
