Fix older kernel handling for Fentry #374
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #374 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage ? 32.18%
=======================================
Files ? 49
Lines ? 3673
Branches ? 0
=======================================
Hits ? 1182
Misses ? 2390
Partials ? 101
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
|
/ok-to-test |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
ok-to-test
|
New image: It will expire after two weeks. To deploy this build, run from the operator repo, assuming the operator is running: USER=netobserv VERSION=18bc1ee make set-agent-image |
pkg/ebpf/tracer.go
Outdated
| // try to use kprobe for older kernels | ||
| rttKprobeLink, err = link.Kprobe("tcp_rcv_established", objects.TcpRcvKprobe, nil) | ||
| if err != nil { | ||
| log.Warningf("failed to attach the BPF program to tcpReceiveFentry: %v fallback to use kprobe", err) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This warn is not always correct. In case of new kernel tcp_rcv_fentry can be successfully attached and the code will continue and fail with kprobe.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah good catch I will fix it Thanks!!
Signed-off-by: Mohamed Mahmoud <[email protected]>
github-actions
bot
removed
the
ok-to-test
|
@matijavizintin: changing LGTM is restricted to collaborators In response to this: Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
Signed-off-by: Mohamed Mahmoud <[email protected]>
| @@ -85,6 +86,7 @@ type FlowFetcherConfig struct { | |||
| FilterConfig *FilterConfig | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| // nolint:cyclop | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can't we split the function here ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we probably can will do that in a follow on pr
|
/approve |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: msherif1234 The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
Description
Fix upstream #369
Dependencies
n/a
Checklist
If you are not familiar with our processes or don't know what to answer in the list below, let us know in a comment: the maintainers will take care of that.