On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 05:05:27PM -0700, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> It was tested with the tracex7 program on x86-64.
it's my fault to start tracexN tradition that turned out to be
cumbersome, let's not continue it. Instead could you rename it
to something meaningful? Like test_probe_write_user ?
Right now it just prints client's peer address and human needs to
visually verify that probe_write_user actually happened, if you can
convert it into a test it will help a lot.
We were planning to convert all of the samples/bpf/ into tests,
so we can run them continuously.
btw, single patch re-submit will not be picked up. Please always
re-submit the whole patch set together.
> +static const struct bpf_func_proto *bpf_get_probe_write_proto(void) {
> + pr_warn_once("*****************************************************\n");
> + pr_warn_once("* bpf_probe_write_user: Experimental Feature in use *\n");
> + pr_warn_once("* bpf_probe_write_user: Feature may corrupt memory *\n");
> + pr_warn_once("*****************************************************\n");
> + pr_notice_ratelimited("bpf_probe_write_user: %s[%d] installing program
> with helper: it may corrupt user memory!",
> + current->comm, task_pid_nr(current));
I thought we were argeeing on single pr_warn_ratelimited without banner ?
The rest looks good.
Thanks!
