linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tracing/user_events: Run BPF program if attached

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]

Date:   Wed, 17 May 2023 16:14:43 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Beau Belgrave <beaub@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.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 Wed, May 17, 2023 at 4:01 PM Beau Belgrave <beaub@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> Do you mind giving me your Signed-off-by for these?

Assuming you have some test-cases that you've run them through, then yes:

 Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>

for both. But since I can't really test them myself, I'd really like
that. I did these patches just by looking at the source code, and
while I think that's an excellent way to do development, I do think
that testing is _also_ required.

And that second patch was obviously not even build-tested, so really
just a "something like this".

> I plan to do a series where I take these patches and then also fix up a
> few comments and the link namings as you suggested.

Sounds good.

> First patch is clean, second patch I made the following changes and
> after that passed all the self-tests without bug splats with
> CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING/RCU and ATOMIC_SLEEP:

Your suggested version with just "list_add()" and a comment about why
it doesn't need RCU safety looks good. And the build fix obviously
requited ;)

                  Linus