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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 19 Jul 2022 19:27:15 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
Cc:     Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "live-patching@...r.kernel.org" <live-patching@...r.kernel.org>,
        "daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
        "jolsa@...nel.org" <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 23:24:35 +0000
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com> wrote:

> Actually, we cannot blindly lock direct_mutex here, as 
> register_ftrace_direct() already locks it before calling 
> register_ftrace_function(). We still need the if (IPMODIFY)
> check. 

Let's not play games with this then.

Create a register_ftrace_function_nolock()

and use that for register_ftrace_direct().

Otherwise it's going to be a nightmare to keep track of.

-- Steve