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:   Wed, 22 May 2019 16:43:09 +0000
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <>
To:     Stanislav Fomichev <>, Yonghong Song <>
CC:     "" <>,
        "" <>,
        Daniel Borkmann <>,
        Kernel Team <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/3] bpf: implement bpf_send_signal() helper

On 5/22/19 9:38 AM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> On 05/21, Yonghong Song wrote:
>> This patch tries to solve the following specific use case.
>> Currently, bpf program can already collect stack traces
>> through kernel function get_perf_callchain()
>> when certain events happens (e.g., cache miss counter or
>> cpu clock counter overflows). But such stack traces are
>> not enough for jitted programs, e.g., hhvm (jited php).
>> To get real stack trace, jit engine internal data structures
>> need to be traversed in order to get the real user functions.
>> bpf program itself may not be the best place to traverse
>> the jit engine as the traversing logic could be complex and
>> it is not a stable interface either.
>> Instead, hhvm implements a signal handler,
>> e.g. for SIGALARM, and a set of program locations which
>> it can dump stack traces. When it receives a signal, it will
>> dump the stack in next such program location.
> [..]
>> This patch implements bpf_send_signal() helper to send
>> a signal to hhvm in real time, resulting in intended stack traces.
> Series looks good. One minor nit/question: maybe rename bpf_send_signal
> to something like bpf_send_signal_to_current/bpf_current_send_signal/etc?
> bpf_send_signal is too generic now that you send the signal
> to the current process..

bpf_send_signal_to_current was Yonghong's original name
and I asked him to rename it to bpf_send_signal :)
I don't see bpf sending signals to arbitrary processes
in the near future.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists