[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250114221002.GA10122@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 23:10:39 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>, Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@...il.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>,
"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, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 12:40 PM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > But, unlike sys_uretprobe(), sys_rt_sigreturn() is old, so the existing
> > setups must know that sigreturn() should be respected...
>
> someday sys_uretprobe will be old as well ;) FWIW, systemd allowlisted
> sys_uretprobe, see [0]
And I agree! ;)
I mean, I'd personally prefer to do nothing and wait until userspace figures
out that we have another "special" syscall.
But can we do it? I simply do not know. Can we ignore this (valid) bug report?
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists