[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250114172519.GB29305@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 18:25:20 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>
Cc: Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@...il.com>, Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
mhiramat@...nel.org, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
BPF-dev-list <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, peterz@...radead.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, bp@...en8.de, x86@...nel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
"rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>, rafi@....io,
Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Crash when attaching uretprobes to processes running in Docker
On 01/14, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> ugh.. could we just 'disable' uretprobe trampoline when seccomp gets enabled?
> overwrite first byte with int3.. and similarly check on seccomp when installing
> uretprobe and switch to int3
Sorry, I don't understand... What exactly we can do? Aside from checking
IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SECCOMP) in arch_uprobe_trampoline() ?
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists