From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE476C433EF for ; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 21:38:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B758461152 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 21:38:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234108AbhKKVlk (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Nov 2021 16:41:40 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:41034 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233894AbhKKVlj (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Nov 2021 16:41:39 -0500 Received: from mail-qt1-x835.google.com (mail-qt1-x835.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::835]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA45CC061767 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 13:38:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qt1-x835.google.com with SMTP id t11so6664645qtw.3 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 13:38:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=PxwVJThHJAypRrQZRCH+RaU8Jxawa/0/CzC1MrNvdNk=; b=Rhk8DulPQRbyf7GUFOo5B9sFqsH2/6LF8kqn5/6pVAnkZEVCNOiCifQxSFL420V9d6 P0eyAsQkOdFTX/ThIvldfdZNDJsoM6onhZ3IzqvrxU6gG7O8UomC/0PHLBWAAD0OxuQA 2OaPfh/waUEd4clUk+N1fjJcIDVx1pUXR2FpB+Z5XNNUUuNknOfDKTQsCj0eZDFN3Xud bSGS01cXX55hQA9MFITidHXS4LY0mwp9qjG5f2qukcCDaB5i97GAlIBEIDJzSIxp3fl0 VhiGvR865sreCTMf8zu4YCu7nNl1jCXcnbpmZposaoJ7J823wHBGr6w+9Y8vx9IShH1p swjQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=PxwVJThHJAypRrQZRCH+RaU8Jxawa/0/CzC1MrNvdNk=; b=j0UfXYWR1ciXjpbvkSB+sWkArfMSCKjSUZhu/6kDXPhh83SGBiomn77E2Wy5UXIiVM 3EOEWkXmDdWeLJ9wL/icrPRZZeGhfzYQrDvDymH5FAdn03oOFyWtmTTN7Pf1iwZqVy1n wr8qd4eFWO7d+x6E2d6HISHvdxv6hOVF3UqQF6Rp5Klg2WeUCP7JIu9QpX7jnBC1I0ng QiFib9DR84WRv1XBE86oPgm7HSJpx6GwRy1NSCw4Yl8Ek8UNh5If5nW9nmLHJNbIvGdE 0Sp/aVZETb0jVoZFNVaon4ASj/AAT0BLJUq0b/wU5f+kQ12chTv+BLnAnF+qIxdBqgie bWfg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533xSIvIwqp280z7vJN8zwUKDrJLIBvJAcyM70hMmdUld4ncy4At DEQbUaaOxqjKBxrwpmrySPBfkGItDAeoLAHqeMoqpfW//YTbkQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwACpFQXm9HUxlPtmIeP8qujbApF90FdRPuTR6VDMKH/kRrX953/Q3bW2Z3t+ISQDvCyRWNepBwq8M3F3IMRjw= X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:4cd:: with SMTP id q13mr11021449qtx.180.1636666728606; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 13:38:48 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20211110192324.920934-1-sdf@google.com> In-Reply-To: From: Stanislav Fomichev Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2021 13:38:37 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2] bpftool: enable libbpf's strict mode by default To: Quentin Monnet Cc: Andrii Nakryiko , Networking , bpf , Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Andrii Nakryiko , John Fastabend Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 1:07 PM Quentin Monnet wrote: > > On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 at 18:19, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 11:23 AM Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > > > > > > Otherwise, attaching with bpftool doesn't work with strict section names. > > > > > > Also: > > > > > > - add --legacy option to switch back to pre-1.0 behavior > > > - print a warning when program fails to load in strict mode to point > > > to --legacy flag > > > - by default, don't append / to the section name; in strict > > > mode it's relevant only for a small subset of prog types > > > > > > > LGTM. I'll wait for Quenting's ack before applying. Thanks! > > Looks good as well, thanks Stanislav! > > Reviewed-by: Quentin Monnet > > I wonder if we should display some indication ("libbpf_strict"?) in > the output of "bpftool version", alongside "libbfd" and "skeleton"? > It's not strictly a feature (and would always be present for newer > versions), but it could help to check how a bpftool binary will > behave? (I don't mind taking it as a follow-up.) Sure, makes sense, I can follow up on that.