Quentin Monnet

 Let's make checkpatch happy (or just ditch this tag, I didn't author anything significant on this commit) All good to me after that

Thanks for the report! So what happens in that case? It breaks `bpftool cgroup tree`, is this correct? Relevant upstream commits: [kernel](https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?h=b79c9fc9551b45953a94abf550b7bd3b00e3a0f9), [bpftool](https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?h=596f5fb2ea2a38032abb8043606ce7168f21f6ab) (Linux 6.1). I suppose the fix will...

Thanks for the contribution! The PR has been inactive for some time, so I'm turning it into a draft until feedback is addressed.

https://blog.trailofbits.com/2022/10/12/solana-jit-compiler-ebpf-arm64/

Agreed it shouldn't be too hard, I'm concerned about CI though. @Alan-Jowett do you have a solution for running CI for the arm64 JIT in uBPF, by any chance?

Agreed on what was said, I also believe that the interest for Cilium is to have the probing done in Go if possible. I don't have much to add, if...

Works completely for bpftool, but I haven't submitted a patch upstream yet. Full working patch: ```diff diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_probes.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_probes.c index ecaae2927ab8..629d39c98f10 100644 --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_probes.c +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_probes.c @@ -203,6 +203,22...

> I don't see why that would be invalid. :sweat_smile: Because the kernel explicitly checks that this BTF object is not kernel BTF in the case of struct_ops maps, see...

But then most of the probes will require some level of privilege anyway?

Sorry I missed this PR. If it is still relevant, could you please rebase it onto the current version of the `readme.md`?