[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171110093459.w2pvo3ntkwbmgnha@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 10:34:59 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>
Cc: rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ast@...nel.org, kernel-team@...com, daniel@...earbox.net,
Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] bpf: add a bpf_override_function helper
* Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com> wrote:
> @@ -551,6 +578,10 @@ static const struct bpf_func_proto *kprobe_prog_func_proto(enum bpf_func_id func
> return &bpf_get_stackid_proto;
> case BPF_FUNC_perf_event_read_value:
> return &bpf_perf_event_read_value_proto;
> + case BPF_FUNC_override_return:
> + pr_warn_ratelimited("%s[%d] is installing a program with bpf_override_return helper that may cause unexpected behavior!",
> + current->comm, task_pid_nr(current));
> + return &bpf_override_return_proto;
So if this new functionality is used we'll always print this into the syslog?
The warning is also a bit passive aggressive about informing the user: what
unexpected behavior can happen, what is the worst case?
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists