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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 6 Jul 2022 17:40:49 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <>
To:     Song Liu <>
Cc:     Song Liu <>, Networking <>,
        bpf <>, lkml <>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <>,
        Daniel Borkmann <>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <>,
        Kernel Team <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 5/5] bpf: trampoline: support

On Wed, 6 Jul 2022 21:37:52 +0000
Song Liu <> wrote:

> > Can you comment here that returning -EAGAIN will not cause this to repeat.
> > That it will change things where the next try will not return -EGAIN?  
> Hmm.. this is not the guarantee here. This conflict is a real race condition 
> that an IPMODIFY function (i.e. livepatch) is being registered at the same time 
> when something else, for example bpftrace, is updating the BPF trampoline. 
> This EAGAIN will propagate to the user of the IPMODIFY function (i.e. livepatch),
> and we need to retry there. In the case of livepatch, the retry is initiated 
> from user space. 

We need to be careful here then. If there's a userspace application that
runs at real-time and does a:

	do {
		errno = 0;
	} while (errno != -EAGAIN);

it could in theory preempt the owner of the lock and never make any

-- Steve

Powered by blists - more mailing lists