On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 3:18 PM Joel Fernandes wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 11:39:56AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
[snip]
> > > For bpf program:
> > > https://android.googlesource.com/platform/system/bpfprogs/+/908f6cd718fab0de7a944f84628c56f292efeb17%5E%21/
> >
> > what is
On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 11:39:56AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
[snip]
> > > > 1. timeinstate: By hooking 2 programs onto sched_switch and
> > > > cpu_frequency
> > > > tracepoints, we are able to collect CPU power per-UID (specific app).
> > > > Connor
> > > > O'Brien is working on that.
>
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 09:57:14AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 03:11:10PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > > > > I think allowing one tracepoint and disallowing another is pointless
> > > > > > from security point of view. Tracing bpf program can do
> > > > > >
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 03:11:10PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > > > I think allowing one tracepoint and disallowing another is pointless
> > > > > from security point of view. Tracing bpf program can do bpf_probe_read
> > > > > of anything.
> > > >
> > > > I think the assumption here is
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 10:51:43PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Hi Alexei,
>
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 02:40:42PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 6:01 AM Joel Fernandes
> > wrote:
> >
> > I trimmed cc. some emails were bouncing.
>
> Ok, thanks.
>
> > > > I
Hi Alexei,
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 02:40:42PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 6:01 AM Joel Fernandes wrote:
>
> I trimmed cc. some emails were bouncing.
Ok, thanks.
> > > I think allowing one tracepoint and disallowing another is pointless
> > > from security point
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 6:01 AM Joel Fernandes wrote:
I trimmed cc. some emails were bouncing.
> > I think allowing one tracepoint and disallowing another is pointless
> > from security point of view. Tracing bpf program can do bpf_probe_read
> > of anything.
>
> I think the assumption here is
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 06:24:07PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
[snip]
> > > > > I don't see why a new bpf node for a trace event is a bad idea,
> > > > > really.
> > > >
> > > > See the patches for kprobe/uprobe FD-based api and the reasons behind
> > > > it.
> > > > tldr: text is racy,
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 06:31:17PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 17:30:50 -0400
> Joel Fernandes wrote:
>
> > I don't see why a new bpf node for a trace event is a bad idea, really.
> > tracefs is how we deal with trace events on Android. We do it in production
> > systems.
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 07:55:00PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 06:41:50PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 03:26:52PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 05:30:50PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I also
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 06:41:50PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 03:26:52PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 05:30:50PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > >
> > > I also thought about the pinning idea before, but we also want to add
> > >
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 06:31:17PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 17:30:50 -0400
> Joel Fernandes wrote:
>
> > I don't see why a new bpf node for a trace event is a bad idea, really.
> > tracefs is how we deal with trace events on Android. We do it in production
> > systems.
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 15:26:52 -0700
Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> I'm absolutely against text based apis.
I guess you don't use /proc ;-)
-- Steve
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 03:26:52PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 05:30:50PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> >
> > I also thought about the pinning idea before, but we also want to add
> > support
> > for not just raw tracepoints, but also regular tracepoints (events
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 17:30:50 -0400
Joel Fernandes wrote:
> I don't see why a new bpf node for a trace event is a bad idea, really.
> tracefs is how we deal with trace events on Android. We do it in production
> systems. This is a natural extension to that and fits with the security model
> well.
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 05:30:50PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>
> I also thought about the pinning idea before, but we also want to add support
> for not just raw tracepoints, but also regular tracepoints (events if you
> will). I am hesitant to add a new BPF API just for creating regular
>
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 01:54:57PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:15:44AM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> why are you cc-ing the whole world for this patch set?
Well, the whole world happens to be interested in BPF on Android.
> I'll reply to all
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:15:44AM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> Hi,
why are you cc-ing the whole world for this patch set?
I'll reply to all as well, but I suspect a bunch of folks consider it spam.
Please read Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst
Also, I think, netdev@vger rejects
Hi,
These patches make it possible to attach BPF programs directly to tracepoints
using ftrace (/sys/kernel/debug/tracing) without needing the process doing the
attach to be alive. This has the following benefits:
1. Simplified Security: In Android, we have finer-grained security controls to
19 matches
Mail list logo
