netdev - Re: linux-next: Tree for Mar 5 (bpf

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200305220459.GA29785@chromium.org>
Date:   Thu, 5 Mar 2020 23:04:59 +0100
From:   KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
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 05-Mär 09:38, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> 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.

I would prefer this. Less chances for breaking something. Sent:

  https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200305220127.29109-1-kpsingh@chromium.org/T/#u

> May be split will work too.

We can do that separately (if needed).

- KP

> or move tracing_prog_ops to kernel/bpf/core.c ?