linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 2/4] ftrace: allow IPMODIFY and DIRECT ops on the same function

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20220719143937.4ff4b167@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Tue, 19 Jul 2022 14:39:37 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
Cc:     <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <live-patching@...r.kernel.org>, <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        <kernel-team@...com>, <jolsa@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 2/4] ftrace: allow IPMODIFY and DIRECT ops
 on the same function

On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 14:28:56 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:

> > +				/* Cannot have two ipmodify on same rec */
> > +				if (is_ipmodify)
> > +					goto rollback;
> > +  
> 
> I might add a
> 
> 				FTRACE_WARN_ON(rec->flags &
> 				FTRACE_FL_DIRECT);

Bah, my email client line wrapped this. It was suppose to be:

 				FTRACE_WARN_ON(rec->flags & FTRACE_FL_DIRECT);

Just so you don't think I wanted that initial formatting ;-)

-- Steve

> 
> Just to be safe.
> 
> That is, if this is true, we are adding a new direct function to a record
> that already has one.