[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240605212354.GC19139@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 23:23:55 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC bpf-next 01/10] uprobe: Add session callbacks to
uprobe_consumer
On 06/05, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> WDYT? It's still fast, and it's simpler than the shadow stack idea, IMO.
Andrii. I am alredy sleeping, I'll try to read your email tomorrow.
Right now I can only say that everything is simpler than the shadow stack ;)
> P.S. Regardless, maybe we should change the order in which we insert
> consumers to uprobe? Right now uprobe consumer added later will be
> executed first, which, while not wrong, is counter-intuitive.
Agreed...
Even if currently this doesn't really matter, I guess it is supposed
that uc->handler() is "non-intrusive".
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists