On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 16:09:30 +0100
Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 12/18/2017 10:51 AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 14:12:54 -0500
> > Josef Bacik wrote:
> >> From: Josef Bacik
> >>
> >> Error injection is sloppy and
On 12/18/2017 10:51 AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 14:12:54 -0500
> Josef Bacik wrote:
>> From: Josef Bacik
>>
>> Error injection is sloppy and very ad-hoc. BPF could fill this niche
>> perfectly with it's kprobe functionality. We could
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 14:12:54 -0500
Josef Bacik wrote:
> From: Josef Bacik
>
> Error injection is sloppy and very ad-hoc. BPF could fill this niche
> perfectly with it's kprobe functionality. We could make sure errors are
> only triggered in specific call
On 12/15/2017 09:34 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
[...]
> Also how big is the v9-v10 change ?
> May be do it as separate patch, since previous set already sitting
> in bpf-next and there are patches on top?
+1
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body
On 12/15/17 11:12 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
+#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_KPROBE_OVERRIDE
+BPF_CALL_2(bpf_override_return, struct pt_regs *, regs, unsigned long, rc)
+{
+ __this_cpu_write(bpf_kprobe_override, 1);
+ regs_set_return_value(regs, rc);
+