linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH hid v12 03/15] HID: initial BPF implementation

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: <3434a2fc-e936-d8c1-8bf9-8d822610f35c@nvidia.com>
Date:   Wed, 23 Nov 2022 18:47:27 +0000
From:   Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
To:     Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Tero Kristo <tero.kristo@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        "linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH hid v12 03/15] HID: initial BPF implementation

Hi Benjamin,

On 23/11/2022 14:48, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:

...

>> We have a kernel test that checks for new warning and error messages on
>> boot and with this change I am now seeing the following error message on
>> our Tegra platforms ...
>>
>>    WARNING KERN hid_bpf: error while preloading HID BPF dispatcher: -13
>>
>> I have a quick look at the code, but I can't say I am familiar with
>> this. So I wanted to ask if a way to fix this or avoid this? I see the
>> code returns 0, so one option would be to make this an informational or
>> debug print.
> 
> I am not in favor of debug in that case, because I suspect it'll hide
> too much when getting a bug report. Informational could do, yes.
> 
> However, before that, I'd like to dig a little bit more on why it is
> failing. I thought arm64 now has support of tracing bpf programs, so I
> would not expect this to fail.

Yes it would be great if we could figure out why this is failing.

> Would you mind sending me your .config so I can check in it if you are
> missing anything? I am thinking that maybe I need to also depend on
> BPF_JIT.

It is basically the stock upstream arm64 defconfig, but I will forward 
offline.

Cheers
Jon

-- 
nvpublic