Andrii Nakryiko wrote:

On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 12:18 PM John Fastabend [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:

quoted

quoted

+struct bpf_map_def {
+   unsigned int type;
+   unsigned int key_size;
+   unsigned int value_size;
+   unsigned int max_entries;
+   unsigned int map_flags;
+   unsigned int inner_map_idx;
+   unsigned int numa_node;
+};

Didn't we agree on no new bpf_map_def ABI in libbpf, and that all
additions should be BTF-based?

-Toke

We use libbpf on pre BTF kernels so in this case I think it makes
sense to add these fields. Having inner_map_idx there should allow
us to remove some other things we have sitting around.

We had a discussion about supporting non-BTF and non-standard BPF map
definition before and it's still on my TODO list to go and do a proof
of concept how that can look like and what libbpf changes we need to
make. Right now libbpf doesn't support those new fields anyway, so we
shouldn't add them to public API.

I'm carrying around a patch for perf_event_open_probe() to get it working
without BTF I'll send that out today/tomorrow. It seems enough to get
all the basic prog load, maps reused/pinned, etc at least for my use
case.

quoted

.John