linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next v1 0/3] bpf: Add BPF program type for overriding tracepoint probes

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]

Message-ID: <c4a62603-11bb-4e93-bc7e-75f8b4574c63@vivo.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 20:54:19 +0800
From: Fuyu Zhao <zhaofuyu@...o.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org,
 martin.lau@...ux.dev, song@...nel.org, yonghong.song@...ux.dev,
 haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org, eddyz87@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org,
 sdf@...ichev.me, mhiramat@...nel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
 shuah@...nel.org, willemb@...gle.com, kerneljasonxing@...il.com,
 paul.chaignon@...il.com, chen.dylane@...ux.dev, memxor@...il.com,
 martin.kelly@...wdstrike.com, ameryhung@...il.com,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
 yikai.lin@...o.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next v1 0/3] bpf: Add BPF program type for
 overriding tracepoint probes



On 9/18/2025 11:24 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2025 20:33:22 +0800
> Fuyu Zhao <zhaofuyu@...o.com> wrote:
> 
>> At the moment, I don’t have a solid real-world example to provide.
>> This work is still in an exploratory stage.
> 
> We shouldn't be in the business of "if you build it, they will come".
> Unless there is a concrete use case now, I would not be adding anything.
> 
> My entire workflow for what I created in the tracing system was "I have a
> need, I will implement it". The "need" came first. I then wrote code to
> satisfy that need. It should not be the other way around.
> 
> -- Steve

Thanks a lot for the feedback and guidance.

I understand your point that new functionality should be driven by real
needs rather than exploratory ideas.

I’ll keep looking into this. If I find a concrete use case that
demonstrates clear value, I’ll bring it back for discussion.

Thanks again.