12 Mar
2024
12 Mar
'24
4:11 p.m.
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 7:44 PM 梦龙董 dongmenglong.8@bytedance.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 9:56 AM Alexei Starovoitov alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 2:35 AM Menglong Dong dongmenglong.8@bytedance.com wrote:
err = libbpf_find_attach_btf_id(prog, attach_name, &btf_obj_fd, &btf_type_id);
name_end = strchr(attach_name, ',');/* for multi-link tracing, use the first target symbol during* loading.*/if ((def & SEC_ATTACH_BTF_MULTI) && name_end) {int len = name_end - attach_name + 1;char *first_tgt;first_tgt = malloc(len);if (!first_tgt)return -ENOMEM;strncpy(first_tgt, attach_name, len);first_tgt[len - 1] = '\0';err = libbpf_find_attach_btf_id(prog, first_tgt, &btf_obj_fd,&btf_type_id);free(first_tgt);} else {err = libbpf_find_attach_btf_id(prog, attach_name, &btf_obj_fd,&btf_type_id);}Pls use glob_match the way [ku]probe multi are doing instead of exact match.
Hello,
I'm a little suspecting the effect of glob_match. I seldom found the use case that the kernel functions which we want to trace have the same naming pattern. And the exact match seems more useful.
Can we use both exact and glob match here?
exact is a subset of glob_match. Pls follow the pattern that[ku]probe multi established in terms of user interface expectations.