linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf/bpf: Allow a bpf program to suppress I/O signals.

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:   Mon, 4 Dec 2023 14:18:49 -0800
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com>
Cc:     Kyle Huey <khuey@...ehuey.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@...llahan.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf/bpf: Allow a bpf program to suppress I/O signals.

On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 12:14 PM Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com> wrote:
>
> Returning zero from a bpf program attached to a perf event already
> suppresses any data output. This allows it to suppress I/O availability
> signals too.

make sense, just one question below

>
> Signed-off-by: Kyle Huey <khuey@...ehuey.com>
> ---
>  kernel/events/core.c | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
> index b704d83a28b2..34d7b19d45eb 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> @@ -10417,8 +10417,10 @@ static void bpf_overflow_handler(struct perf_event *event,
>         rcu_read_unlock();
>  out:
>         __this_cpu_dec(bpf_prog_active);
> -       if (!ret)
> +       if (!ret) {
> +               event->pending_kill = 0;
>                 return;
> +       }

What's the distinction between event->pending_kill and
event->pending_wakeup? Should we do something about pending_wakeup?
Asking out of complete ignorance of all these perf specifics.


>
>         event->orig_overflow_handler(event, data, regs);
>  }
> --
> 2.34.1
>
>