Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-203293-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 23:23:55 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>, bpf@vger.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@chromium.org>,
	Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC bpf-next 01/10] uprobe: Add session callbacks to
 uprobe_consumer
Message-ID: <20240605212354.GC19139@redhat.com>
References: <20240604200221.377848-1-jolsa@kernel.org>
 <20240604200221.377848-2-jolsa@kernel.org>
 <CAEf4BzbzgTzvnPRJ24gdhuxN02_w8iNNFn4URh0vEp-t69oPnA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240605175619.GH25006@redhat.com>
 <CAEf4Bzbz3vi6ahkUu7yABV-QhkzNCF-ROcRjUpGjt0FRjfDuKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4Bzbz3vi6ahkUu7yABV-QhkzNCF-ROcRjUpGjt0FRjfDuKQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)

On 06/05, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> WDYT? It's still fast, and it's simpler than the shadow stack idea, IMO.

Andrii. I am alredy sleeping, I'll try to read your email tomorrow.
Right now I can only say that everything is simpler than the shadow stack ;)

> P.S. Regardless, maybe we should change the order in which we insert
> consumers to uprobe? Right now uprobe consumer added later will be
> executed first, which, while not wrong, is counter-intuitive.

Agreed...

Even if currently this doesn't really matter, I guess it is supposed
that uc->handler() is "non-intrusive".

Oleg.