[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAADnVQJquAF=XOjbyj-xmKupyCa=5O76QXWf6Pjq+j+dTvaEpg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 15:12:13 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...gle.com>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...hat.com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: Use tracing helpers for lsm programs
On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 12:00 PM Song Liu <song@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 8:45 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Currenty lsm uses bpf_tracing_func_proto helpers which do
> > not include stack trace or perf event output. It's useful
> > to have those for bpftrace lsm support [1].
> >
> > Using tracing_prog_func_proto helpers for lsm programs.
>
> How about using raw_tp_prog_func_proto?
why?
I think skb/xdp_output is useful for lsm progs too.
So I've applied the patch.
> PS: Please tag the patch with subject prefix "PATCH bpf" for
> "PATCH bpf-next". I think this one belongs to bpf-next, which means
> we should wait after the merge window.
+1.
Jiri,
pls tag the subject properly.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists