John Fastabend <john.fastab...@gmail.com> writes:
> Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 10:03:43AM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> >> Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > Please implement proper indirect calls and jumps.
>> >>
>> >> I am still not convinced this will actually solve our problem; but OK, I
>> >> can give it a shot.
>> >
>> > If you're not convinced let's talk about it first.
>> >
>> > Indirect calls is a building block for debugpoints.
>> > Let's not call them tracepoints, because Linus banned any discusion
>> > that includes that name.
>> > The debugpoints is a way for BPF program to insert points in its
>> > code to let external facility to do tracing and debugging.
>> >
>> > void (*debugpoint1)(struct xdp_buff *, int code);
>> > void (*debugpoint2)(struct xdp_buff *);
>> > void (*debugpoint3)(int len);
>
> I was considering some basic static linking from libbpf side. Something
> like,
>
> bpf_object__link_programs(struct bpf_object *obj1, struct bpf_object *obj2);
>
> This way you could just 'link' in debugpoint{1,2,3} from libbpf before
> loading? This would be useful on my side for adding/removing features
> and handling different kernel versions. So more generally useful IMO.
So that will end up with a single monolithic BPF program being loaded
(from the kernel PoV), right? That won't do; we want to be able to go
back to the component programs, and manipulate them as separate kernel
objects.
-Toke
