On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 08:47:59AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 11:50:28 +0100 > Heiko Carstens <[email protected]> wrote: > > # cat tracing/enabled_functions > > free_user_ns (1) R > > bpf_lsm_path_mkdir (1) R D M tramp: ftrace_regs_caller+0x0/0x68 > > (call_direct_funcs+0x0/0x20) > > direct-->bpf_trampoline_6442505669+0x0/0x148 > > bpf_lsm_path_mknod (1) R D M tramp: ftrace_regs_caller+0x0/0x68 > > (call_direct_funcs+0x0/0x20) > > direct-->bpf_trampoline_6442505671+0x0/0x14e > > After I submitted the patches, I then remembered that some user space tools > add BPF programs that attach to functions, and those will show up in the > enabled_functions table (that's a feature as it is always good to know what > is modifying your kernel!). And I figured it will break this test. > > I decided to wait until someone complains about it before fixing it ;-) ... > > > > This could be worked around for example with something like the patch > > below (against linux-next). But no idea what your preferred way to > > handle this would be. > > Actually, when I thought about fixing this, your patch is pretty much what > I was thinking of doing.
Ok, I'll send a proper patch then.
