[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230516222919.79bba667@rorschach.local.home>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2023 22:29:19 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Beau Belgrave <beaub@...ux.microsoft.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>, dthaler@...rosoft.com,
brauner@...nel.org, hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing/user_events: Run BPF program if attached
On Tue, 16 May 2023 18:46:29 -0700
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> So don't even ask for other GUP functionality, much less the "remote"
> kind. Not going to happen. If you think you need access to remote
> process memory, you had better do it in process context, or you had
> better just think again.
So this code path is very much in user context (called directly by a
write system call). The issue that Alexei had was that it's also in an
rcu_read_lock() section.
I wonder if this all goes away if we switch to SRCU? That is, sleepable RCU.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists