Daniel Xu

> > I do think the end goal should be to 'unvendor' it again when (if ever) everything stabilizes > > That's kinda why I suggested 1.0 as the min...

Thanks for the detailed analysis @BurntBrunch . I've only skimmed the details (about to head off the grid for a few days) but I think this is a nice compromise....

> On a side note, from a distro packager point of view, doing a libbpf version update is not as simple as for other userspace tools (e.g. bpftrace). Since libbpf...

I think you should be able to drop all the `-p`'s and bpftrace will trace all processes. If you want to further restrict by pid you can add a conditional...

How would truthiness work for structs?

We really should just parse mount table and not hard code these paths

> As of kprobe, bpftrace emites an error: For what it's worth, this is because of bcc: https://github.com/iovisor/bcc/blob/e4e660d52d1a32874a8f560441d3915d6beeb5cc/src/cc/libbpf.c#L1062 > I think it would be good to add an option (--ignore...

Thinking about it again, I think it'd be better long term to error out invalid attachpoints. We'd rather not confuse new users unfamiliar with bpftrace quirks. I'd vote for error...

> It happens sometimes that a tool attaches the same probe to multiple (wildcard-less) attachpoints, counting with the fact that one of them may not exist (e.g. b/c they become...

> > So if we call multi-wildcard-less attachpoints a "wildcard", then are we still good for what I proposed in [#1955 (comment)](https://github.com/iovisor/bpftrace/issues/1955#issuecomment-894378731) ? > > So, if I understand correctly,...