[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190904153330.GI240514@google.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 11:33:30 -0400
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Jirka Hladký <jhladky@...hat.com>,
Jiří Vozár <jvozar@...hat.com>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/debug: add sched_update_nr_running tracepoint
On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 08:26:52AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 6:14 AM Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org> wrote:
> >
> > True. However, for kprobes-based BPF program - it does check for kernel
> > version to ensure that the BPF program is built against the right kernel
> > version (in order to ensure the program is built against the right set of
> > kernel headers). If it is not, then BPF refuses to load the program.
>
> This is not true anymore. Users found few ways to workaround that check
> in practice. It became useless and it was deleted some time ago.
Wow, Ok! Interesting!
thanks,
- Joel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists