netdev - Re: [PATCH] tracing: bpf: Hide bpf trace events when they are not used

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:   Thu, 12 Oct 2017 21:49:45 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing: bpf: Hide bpf trace events when they are not
 used

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 18:38:36 -0700
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:

> actually just noticed that xdp tracepoints are not covered by ifdef.
> They depend on bpf_syscall too. So probably makes sense to wrap
> them together.
> bpf tracepoints are not being actively worked on whereas xdp tracepoints
> keep evolving quickly, so the best is probalby to go via net-next
> if you don't mind.

Hmm, they didn't trigger a warning, with the exception of
trace_xdp_redirect_map. I have code to check if tracepoints are used or
not, and it appears that the xdp can be used without BPF_SYSCALL.

I don't think they should be wrapped together until we know why they
are used. I can still take this patch and just not touch the xdp ones.

Note, my kernel was using trace_xdp_redirect_map_err,
trace_xdp_redirect_err, trace_xdp_redirect and trace_xdp_exception.

As they did appear.

-- Steve