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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 27 Oct 2020 09:14:01 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <>
Cc:     Jiri Olsa <>, Jiri Olsa <>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <>,
        Daniel Borkmann <>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <>,,, Martin KaFai Lau <>,
        Song Liu <>, Yonghong Song <>,
        John Fastabend <>,
        KP Singh <>, Daniel Xu <>,
        Jesper Brouer <>,
        Toke Høiland-Jørgensen 
        <>, Viktor Malik <>
Subject: Re: [RFC bpf-next 00/16] bpf: Speed up trampoline attach

On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 21:30:14 -0700
Alexei Starovoitov <> 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