[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230608031011epcms5p23c6aa244e514729b98df2af7e45db67c@epcms5p2>
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2023 08:40:11 +0530
From: Maninder Singh <maninder1.s@...sung.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
CC: "ast@...nel.org" <ast@...nel.org>,
"daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
"john.fastabend@...il.com" <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
"andrii@...nel.org" <andrii@...nel.org>,
"martin.lau@...ux.dev" <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
"song@...nel.org" <song@...nel.org>, "yhs@...com" <yhs@...com>,
"kpsingh@...nel.org" <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
"sdf@...gle.com" <sdf@...gle.com>,
"haoluo@...gle.com" <haoluo@...gle.com>,
"jolsa@...nel.org" <jolsa@...nel.org>,
"thunder.leizhen@...wei.com" <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>,
"mcgrof@...nel.org" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
"boqun.feng@...il.com" <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
"vincenzopalazzodev@...il.com" <vincenzopalazzodev@...il.com>,
"ojeda@...nel.org" <ojeda@...nel.org>,
"jgross@...e.com" <jgross@...e.com>,
"brauner@...nel.org" <brauner@...nel.org>,
"michael.christie@...cle.com" <michael.christie@...cle.com>,
"samitolvanen@...gle.com" <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
"glider@...gle.com" <glider@...gle.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
"stephen.s.brennan@...cle.com" <stephen.s.brennan@...cle.com>,
"alan.maguire@...cle.com" <alan.maguire@...cle.com>,
"pmladek@...e.com" <pmladek@...e.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Onkarnath <onkarnath.1@...sung.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 2/3] bpf: make bpf_dump_raw_ok() based on
CONFIG_KALLSYMS
Hi,
> > also as per below code:
> > (we were not sure whether BPF will work or not with patch 3/3 because of no expertise on BPF code,
> > so we keep the behaviour same)
>
> I think bpf_dump_raw_ok() is purely about checking whether it's ok to
> return unobfuscated kernel addresses to user/BPF program. So it feels
> like it should be ok to just rely on kallsyms_show_value() and not
> special case here. If some of the code relies on actually having
> CONFIG_KALLSYMS and related functionality, it should be properly
> guarded already (or should enforce `SELECT KALLSYMS` in Kconfig).
Thanks for your confirmation, I will resend patches without bpf change.
Thanks,
Maninder Singh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists