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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 09:14:01 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>, Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>, Jesper Brouer <jbrouer@...hat.com>, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>, Viktor Malik <vmalik@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [RFC bpf-next 00/16] bpf: Speed up trampoline attach On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 21:30:14 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote: > > Direct calls wasn't added so that bpf and ftrace could co-exist, it was > > that for certain cases, bpf wanted a faster way to access arguments, > > because it still worked with ftrace, but the saving of regs was too > > strenuous. > > Direct calls in ftrace were done so that ftrace and trampoline can co-exist. > There is no other use for it. What does that even mean? And I'm guessing when you say "trampoline" you mean a "bpf trampoline" because "trampoline" is used for a lot more than bpf, and bpf does not own that term. Do you mean, "direct calls in ftrace were done so that bpf trampolines could work". Remember, ftrace has a lot of users, and it must remain backward compatible. -- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists