On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 12:17 AM Hao Xiang <hao.xiang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > In a previous commit, Ubuntu kernel code version is correctly set > by retrieving the information from /proc/version_signature. > > commit<5b3d72987701d51bf31823b39db49d10970f5c2d> > (libbpf: Improve LINUX_VERSION_CODE detection) > > The /proc/version_signature file doesn't present in at least the > older versions of Debian distributions (eg, Debian 9, 10). The Debian > kernel has a similar issue where the release information from uname() > syscall doesn't give the kernel code version that matches what the > kernel actually expects. Below is an example content from Debian 10. > > release: 4.19.0-23-amd64 > version: #1 SMP Debian 4.19.269-1 (2022-12-20) x86_64 > > Debian reports incorrect kernel version in utsname::release returned > by uname() syscall, which in older kernels (Debian 9, 10) leads to > kprobe BPF programs failing to load due to the version check mismatch. > > Fortunately, the correct kernel code version presents in the > utsname::version returned by uname() syscall in Debian kernels. This > change adds another get kernel version function to handle Debian in > addition to the previously added get kernel version function to handle > Ubuntu. Some minor refactoring work is also done to make the code more > readable. > > Signed-off-by: Hao Xiang <hao.xiang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Ho-Ren (Jack) Chuang <horenchuang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- yes, the patch looks correctly formatted, but you haven't addressed all the feedback. Please check my last reply on previous version and submit a new version with feedback addressed. Thank you. > tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 37 -------------- > tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_probes.c | 93 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-) > [...]
