On Tue, Sep 02, 2025 at 09:11:22AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 7:38 AM Jiri Olsa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Adding support to attach unique uprobe through uprobe multi link > > interface. > > > > Adding new BPF_F_UPROBE_MULTI_UNIQUE flag that denotes the unique > > uprobe creation. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <[email protected]> > > --- > > include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 3 ++- > > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 4 +++- > > tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 3 ++- > > 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h > > index 233de8677382..3de9eb469fe2 100644 > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h > > @@ -1300,7 +1300,8 @@ enum { > > * BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_MULTI attach type to create return probe. > > */ > > enum { > > - BPF_F_UPROBE_MULTI_RETURN = (1U << 0) > > + BPF_F_UPROBE_MULTI_RETURN = (1U << 0), > > + BPF_F_UPROBE_MULTI_UNIQUE = (1U << 1), > > I second Masami's point. "exclusive" name fits better. > And once you use that name the "multi_exclusive" > part will not make sense. > How can an exclusive user of the uprobe be "multi" at the same time? > Like attaching to multiple uprobes and modifying regsiters > in all of them? Is it practical ?
we can still attach single uprobe with uprobe_multi, but for more uprobes it's probably not practical > It till attach single uprobe with eels to me BPF_F_UPROBE_EXCLUSIVE should be > targeting > one specific uprobe. do you mean to force single uprobe with this flag? I understood 'BPF_F_UPROBE_MULTI_' flag prefix more as indication what link it belongs to, but I'm ok with BPF_F_UPROBE_EXCLUSIVE thanks, jirka
