linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ebpf, events: make it actually more configurable

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 3 Oct 2015 08:37:15 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ebpf, events: make it actually more configurable

* Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:

> While testing some other BPF issue, I realized that BPF_EVENTS is
> actually not accessible through menuconfig because of a missing
> description that needs to be attached to the bool. After the patch
> the entry shows up in menuconfig and can be enabled/disabled from
> there.

Yeah, so the principle is the following: the main configuration option for it is 
BPF_SYSCALL. The BPF_EVENTS is an internal detail, always enabled when possible, 
and we make it so that if the BPF syscall is enabled, we'll enable the perf 
integration if all the must-have components are in place:

>  	depends on KPROBE_EVENT || UPROBE_EVENT
>  	default y

So this is intentional.

Unless your suggestion is to also enable it when neither KPROBE_EVENT nor 
UPROBE_EVENT are defined. Does that make sense?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/