On Mon, Oct 19, 2026 at 2:48 PM Gabriele Monaco <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Do I understand it correctly that the idea is to modify existing > > tracefs instances when enabling an RV monitor to filter our RV-related > > bpf_trace_printk events? > > Not quite. The initial issue is that the current iteration of RV BPF monitor > don't cooperate well with trace-cmd/perf. Alexei suggested we use bpf_printk > and > filter out the desired events with plain ftrace glob filters (from trace- > cmd/perf). > > I believe this would be usually equivalent to having a dedicated tracepoint > for > RV BPF monitors. > > E.g. you'd do (roughly): > > trace-cmd -e bpf_prink --filter 'bpf_string ~ "rv: sleep: * violation" > > instead of (with a new kfunc) > > trace-cmd -e rv:error_bpf --filter 'monitor = "sleep"' >
I was talking about preventing other (non-RV) consumers of bpf_trace_printk from seeing the RV prints. Eg. if I create a tracefs instance and enable bpf_trace_printk, intending to see my own debug prints, I will also see debug prints for RV, unless I explicitly filter them out. I get that on the RV side, these are mostly equivalent. Tomas
