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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2020 09:38:42 -0800 From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> To: KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org> Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Mar 5 (bpf_trace) On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 9:32 AM KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org> wrote: > > This fails as we added bpf_test_run_tracing in net/bpf/test_run.c > which gets built only CONFIG_NET is enabled. Which, this particular > config, disables. > > Alexei, if it's okay with you. I can send a patch that separates the > tracing test code into kernel/bpf/test_run_trace.c which depends > only on CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL. In such situation we typically add __weak dummy call. May be split will work too. or move tracing_prog_ops to kernel/bpf/core.c ?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists