# Re: \[PATCH bpf-next v2 2/3\] libbpf: support detecting and attaching of writable tracepoint program

- From: Hou Tao \<hidden\>
- Date: 2021-09-28 12:28:39 
- List: netdev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2021/09/7780620
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2021/09/7779748/t.md

```text
Hi,

On 9/22/2021 5:42 AM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 6:56 PM Hou Tao [ref] wrote:
>> Program on writable tracepoint is BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINT_WRITABLE,
>> but its attachment is the same as BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINT.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <redacted>
>> ---
>>  tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 4 ++++
>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
>> index da65a1666a5e..981fcdd95bdc 100644
>> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
>> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
>> @@ -7976,6 +7976,10 @@ static const struct bpf_sec_def section_defs[] = {
>>                 .attach_fn = attach_raw_tp),
>>         SEC_DEF("raw_tp/", RAW_TRACEPOINT,
>>                 .attach_fn = attach_raw_tp),
>> +       SEC_DEF("raw_tracepoint_writable/", RAW_TRACEPOINT_WRITABLE,
>> +               .attach_fn = attach_raw_tp),
>> +       SEC_DEF("raw_tp_writable/", RAW_TRACEPOINT_WRITABLE,
>> +               .attach_fn = attach_raw_tp),
> _writable is a bit mouthful, maybe we should do the same we did for
> "sleepable", just add ".w" suffix? So it will be "raw_tp.w/..."? Or
> does anyone feel it's too subtle?
raw_tp.w is fine to me. Will update it in v3.
>
>>         SEC_DEF("tp_btf/", TRACING,
>>                 .expected_attach_type = BPF_TRACE_RAW_TP,
>>                 .is_attach_btf = true,
>> --
>> 2.29.2
>>
> .

```