[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPhsuW70YkMkHCca=Ke9YKDo-TD60RjLe08UvuMnXBnq9uDG8g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 15:52:23 -0700
From: Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
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 3:12 PM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
The only reason I asked was that the commit log only said stack trace and
perf event output. No objections allowing other helpers for lsm.
Thanks,
Song
Powered by blists - more mailing lists