[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAADnVQKTQMo3wvJWajQSgT5fTsH-rNsz1z8n9yeM3fx+015-jA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2022 12:47:47 -0800
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>
Cc: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>,
Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:HID CORE LAYER" <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH HID for-next v3 1/5] bpf: do not rely on
ALLOW_ERROR_INJECTION for fmod_ret
On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 6:59 AM Benjamin Tissoires
<benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> The current way of expressing that a non-bpf kernel component is willing
> to accept that bpf programs can be attached to it and that they can change
> the return value is to abuse ALLOW_ERROR_INJECTION.
> This is debated in the link below, and the result is that it is not a
> reasonable thing to do.
>
> Reuse the kfunc declaration structure to also tag the kernel functions
> we want to be fmodret. This way we can control from any subsystem which
> functions are being modified by bpf without touching the verifier.
>
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221121104403.1545f9b5@gandalf.local.home/
> Suggested-by: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>
BPF CI couldn't do its job because of a merge conflict.
CI only tries to apply the whole series.
But I tested the patch 1 manually.
Everything is green on x86-64 and the patch looks good.
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Please send the set during the merge window.
If not we can take just this patch,
since the series from Viktor Malik would need this patch too.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists