On Wed, 2018-10-31 at 11:42 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 11:36 AM Dan Siemon <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I was on the IOVisor call, there was discussion of making the > > loader > > more complicated (perf stuff) and work on libbpf to support this. > > Does > > this refer to doing the relocations etc in the ELF file? > > > > We have our own loader written in Go for our bpf classifier use > > cases > > so I'm curious what these changes may mean for us. The current > > implementation was reasonably simple. Is the expectation going > > forward > > that libbpf is always used? Will other implementations need to > > track > > and duplicate this complexity or is this backwards compatible? > > reasonably simple? ;) > I suspect it doesn't support bpf-to-bpf calls and BTF, right? > These were major additions that folks with custom loader > will be missing. > A lot more stuff to come with BTF, relocations, etc. > I don't think it will be feasible to replicate the same functionality > in other libraries. > Hence everyone is highly encouraged to use libbpf. > c++, go or any other wrappers can go on top. > Whether they're kept as part of libbpf repo or repo next to it is > tbd.
Correct. No BTF, I mostly had bpf calls going but didn't finish it because we don't need it right now. I understand the situation but this makes me a bit sad. I wrote the loader originally to avoid 'unsafe' code in our project. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#1511): https://lists.iovisor.org/g/iovisor-dev/message/1511 Mute This Topic: https://lists.iovisor.org/mt/27808558/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.iovisor.org/g/iovisor-dev/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
