linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] bpf: Put perf_events check ahead of bpf prog

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <558E56DE.4070006@plumgrid.com>
Date:	Sat, 27 Jun 2015 00:55:10 -0700
From:	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
To:	He Kuang <hekuang@...wei.com>, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com, mingo@...hat.com, acme@...hat.com
CC:	wangnan0@...wei.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: Put perf_events check ahead of bpf prog

On 6/26/15 11:44 PM, He Kuang wrote:
> @@ -1141,13 +1141,13 @@ kprobe_perf_func(struct trace_kprobe *tk, struct pt_regs *regs)
>   	int size, __size, dsize;
>   	int rctx;
>
> -	if (prog && !trace_call_bpf(prog, regs))
> -		return;
> -
>   	head = this_cpu_ptr(call->perf_events);
>   	if (hlist_empty(head))
>   		return;
>
> +	if (prog && !trace_call_bpf(prog, regs))
> +		return;

I considered doing that before placing it where it is now.
There were some issues with this approach. Trying to remember.
I'm traveling at the moment. Will elaborate next week.
--
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/