Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230417154737.12740-1-laoar.shao@gmail.com> <20230417154737.12740-6-laoar.shao@gmail.com>
 <20230427092628.21fd23e4@gandalf.local.home> <CALOAHbBX1C-eg93Hf3xPLsdsaBzoGn1pHh9jb3Z_-T-7HD60wA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230427111842.2e40fe3c@gandalf.local.home> <CALOAHbDRSNvihv5n0jJpAsK3onezRRipO78RG3rAf3LGgkzYHg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230427113602.0e49c0d1@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20230427113602.0e49c0d1@gandalf.local.home>
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Apr 2023 08:39:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CAADnVQLaBMtBoSY4ZMgeTU1T-rrU6vPSU+xg1HmQpWnnE84sNw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 5/6] bpf: Improve tracing recursion prevention mechanism
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>,
        Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 8:36=E2=80=AFAM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org=
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 23:23:31 +0800
> Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > But I thought you can run a bpf_prog from another bpf_prog. So you do=
n't
> > > want to prevent it. You need other logic to detect if it was not supp=
ose to
> > > recurs.
> > >
> >
> > If so, we have to keep the prog->active to prevent it, then I'm not
> > sure if it is worth adding test_recursion_*().
>
> I thought that the whole point of this exercise was because the
> migrate_disable() itself could be traced (or call something that can), an=
d
> that's outside of prog->active protection. Which the test_recursion_*()
> code was created for.

Not sure where did this come from.
migrate_enable/disable were added to deny list back in 2021.