libbpf: Use weak hidden modifier for USDT BPF-side API functions

Use __weak __hidden for bpf_usdt_xxx() APIs instead of much more
confusing `static inline __noinline`. This was previously impossible due
to libbpf erroring out on CO-RE relocations pointing to eliminated weak
subprogs. Now that previous patch fixed this issue, switch back to
__weak __hidden as it's a more direct way of specifying the desired
behavior.

Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220408181425.2287230-3-andrii@kernel.org
This commit is contained in:
Andrii Nakryiko 2022-04-08 11:14:24 -07:00 committed by Daniel Borkmann
parent e89d57d938
commit 2fa5b0f290

View file

@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ int __bpf_usdt_spec_id(struct pt_regs *ctx)
}
/* Return number of USDT arguments defined for currently traced USDT. */
static inline __noinline
__weak __hidden
int bpf_usdt_arg_cnt(struct pt_regs *ctx)
{
struct __bpf_usdt_spec *spec;
@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ int bpf_usdt_arg_cnt(struct pt_regs *ctx)
* Returns 0 on success; negative error, otherwise.
* On error *res is guaranteed to be set to zero.
*/
static inline __noinline
__weak __hidden
int bpf_usdt_arg(struct pt_regs *ctx, __u64 arg_num, long *res)
{
struct __bpf_usdt_spec *spec;
@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ int bpf_usdt_arg(struct pt_regs *ctx, __u64 arg_num, long *res)
* utilizing BPF cookies internally, so user can't use BPF cookie directly
* for USDT programs and has to use bpf_usdt_cookie() API instead.
*/
static inline __noinline
__weak __hidden
long bpf_usdt_cookie(struct pt_regs *ctx)
{
struct __bpf_usdt_spec *spec;