[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20220421140740.459558-1-benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 16:07:33 +0200
From: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>
Cc: Tero Kristo <tero.kristo@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org,
Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>
Subject: [RFC bpf-next v4 0/7] Introduce eBPF support for HID devices (new attempt)
Hi,
so after the reviews from v3, and some discussion with Alexei, I am
back with a new version of HID-BPF.
This version is not complete (thus the RFC), but I'd like to share
it now to get initial feedback, in case I am too far from the actual
goal.
FTR, the goal is to provide some changes in the core verifier/btf so
that we can plug in HID-BPF independently from BPF core. This way we can
extend it without having to care about bpf-next.
The things I am not entirely sure are:
- do we need only fentry/fexit/fmod_ret BPF program types or should
programs that modify the data stream use a different kind?
- patch 3/7 is probably not the correct approach (see comments in the
patch itself)
We are missing quite a few bits here:
- selftests for patches 1 to 4
- add the ability to attach a program to a struct device, and run that
program only for that struct device
- when running through bpf_prog_test_run_opts, how can we ensure we are
talking to the correct device? (I have a feeling this is linked to the
previous point)
- how can we reconnect the device when a report descriptor fixup BPF
program is loaded (would it make sense to allow some notifications on
when a BPF program is attached/detached to a device, and which
function have been traced?)
Cheers,
Benjamin
Benjamin Tissoires (7):
bpf/btf: also allow kfunc in tracing programs
bpf/verifier: allow kfunc to return an allocated mem
error-inject: add new type that carries if the function is non
sleepable
btf: Add a new kfunc set which allows to mark a function to be
sleepable
HID: initial BPF new way implementation
samples/bpf: add new hid_mouse example
selftests/bpf: add tests for the HID-bpf initial implementation
drivers/hid/hid-core.c | 115 +++++
include/asm-generic/error-injection.h | 1 +
include/linux/btf.h | 8 +
include/linux/hid_bpf.h | 29 ++
kernel/bpf/btf.c | 50 +-
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 76 ++-
lib/error-inject.c | 2 +
samples/bpf/.gitignore | 1 +
samples/bpf/Makefile | 23 +
samples/bpf/hid_mouse.bpf.c | 59 +++
samples/bpf/hid_mouse.c | 131 +++++
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/config | 3 +
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/hid.c | 482 +++++++++++++++++++
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/hid.c | 32 ++
14 files changed, 987 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 include/linux/hid_bpf.h
create mode 100644 samples/bpf/hid_mouse.bpf.c
create mode 100644 samples/bpf/hid_mouse.c
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/hid.c
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/hid.c
--
2.35.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists