Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 21 Oct 2017 10:06:32 +0200 | From | Greg Kroah-Hartman <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH -tip 0/5] kprobes: Abolish jprobe APIs |
| |
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 09:28:33AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 8:17 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > * Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 5:22 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote: > >> > > >> > Ok, could we now also fix these: > >> > > >> > net/dccp/probe.c:166:2: warning: ‘register_jprobe’ is deprecated [-Wdeprecated-declarations] > >> > net/dccp/probe.c:170:4: warning: ‘register_jprobe’ is deprecated [-Wdeprecated-declarations] > >> > net/dccp/probe.c:190:2: warning: ‘unregister_jprobe’ is deprecated [-Wdeprecated-declarations] > >> > drivers/misc/lkdtm_core.c:317:3: warning: ‘unregister_jprobe’ is deprecated [-Wdeprecated-declarations] > >> > drivers/misc/lkdtm_core.c:322:2: warning: ‘register_jprobe’ is deprecated [-Wdeprecated-declarations] > >> > drivers/misc/lkdtm_core.c:560:3: warning: ‘unregister_jprobe’ is deprecated [-Wdeprecated-declarations] > >> > net/sctp/probe.c:189:2: warning: ‘register_jprobe’ is deprecated [-Wdeprecated-declarations] > >> > net/sctp/probe.c:194:3: warning: ‘register_jprobe’ is deprecated [-Wdeprecated-declarations] > >> > net/sctp/probe.c:240:2: warning: ‘unregister_jprobe’ is deprecated [-Wdeprecated-declarations] > >> > net/ipv4/tcp_probe.c:280:2: warning: ‘register_jprobe’ is deprecated [-Wdeprecated-declarations] > >> > net/ipv4/tcp_probe.c:298:2: warning: ‘unregister_jprobe’ is deprecated [-Wdeprecated-declarations] > >> > > >> > I'd suggest removing the networking ones and Cc:-ing it to the networking folks - > >> > I strongly doubt anyone is using that functionality for real. > >> > > >> > The LKDTM one Kees had some ideas (patches?) for? > >> > >> Oops, yes, I've sent this patch to Greg now. I had let it sit for a > >> few days of 0-day testing and promptly forgot about it. ;) > > > > Could we, as a special exception, carry this patch in -tip, so that the probes > > related changes stay togher - or is it too distruptive to the flow of other > > in-flight LKDTM patches, creating conflicts, etc.? > > I have no problem with that, sure; these were the only outstanding > lkdtm patches (one for jprobes removal, and another for const > clean-ups noticed during the first patch's work). However, Greg pulled > them to his -testing tree already, so I guess it's up to him. Just let > me know what I can do to help. :)
It's in my tree as well, Ingo, you can take it too, there shouldn't be any merge issues that I can tell.
thanks,
greg k-h
| |