linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tracing/selftests: Ignore __pfx

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: <Y+TO1+k58kj2Z29t@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 9 Feb 2023 11:45:43 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Trace Kernel <linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing/selftests: Ignore __pfx_ symbols in kprobe test

On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 05:03:04PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 19:05:08 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> 
> > > This is assuming that kprobes can not be added on top of these. But another
> > > solution could be to have kprobes just pick the function the __pfx_ is for.
> > > Would that be a better solution?  
> > 
> > Simply refusing them is simplest. I don't see a compelling reason to
> > make this complicated.
> 
> OK, so you are good with the patch as is then?

Yeah, but given I've no idea about the whole test thing or .tc files I
didn't ack.