[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMEtUuyLU5i4LW=ugTkOc4b2KLfo3cQhZe1pp+fLmq3qNfGQfg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 17:48:58 -0500
From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 linux-trace 1/8] tracing: attach eBPF programs to
tracepoints and syscalls
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 5:28 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> We're compiling the BPF stuff against the 'current' kernel headers
> right?
the tracex1 example is pulling kernel headers to demonstrate
how bpf_fetch*() helpers can be used to walk kernel structures
without debug info.
The other examples don't need any internal headers.
> So would enforcing module versioning not be sufficient?
I'm going to redo the ex1 to use kprobe and some form of
version check. Indeed module-like versioning should
be enough.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists