On Mon, Oct 19, 2026 at 11:05 AM Gabriele Monaco <[email protected]> wrote: > > Alright, I'll focus on trace_printk for now. As I said, it's rather trivial to > add another reactor later. >
One disadvantage of using bpf_trace_printk() for RV violation reporting is that the event will be caught by every instance that enables bpf_trace_printk() and does not explicitly filter rv out. I can imagine an RV-specific trace event for that, however, it would require a separate kfunc to generate it, and ideally also distinct labeling of a BPF program eligible to call that kfunc. The "rv" userspace tool could then iterate over these labels so the user knows which violation events can be expected to occur on the system. Tomas
