Re: [RFC PATCH -tip 0/5] kprobes: Abolish jprobe APIs

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

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@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > * Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 5:22 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Ok, could we now also fix these:
> >> >
> >> > net/dccp/probe.c:166:2: warning: âregister_jprobeâ is deprecated [-Wdeprecated-declarations]
> >> > net/dccp/probe.c:170:4: warning: âregister_jprobeâ is deprecated [-Wdeprecated-declarations]
> >> > net/dccp/probe.c:190:2: warning: âunregister_jprobeâ is deprecated [-Wdeprecated-declarations]
> >> > drivers/misc/lkdtm_core.c:317:3: warning: âunregister_jprobeâ is deprecated [-Wdeprecated-declarations]
> >> > drivers/misc/lkdtm_core.c:322:2: warning: âregister_jprobeâ is deprecated [-Wdeprecated-declarations]
> >> > drivers/misc/lkdtm_core.c:560:3: warning: âunregister_jprobeâ is deprecated [-Wdeprecated-declarations]
> >> > net/sctp/probe.c:189:2: warning: âregister_jprobeâ is deprecated [-Wdeprecated-declarations]
> >> > net/sctp/probe.c:194:3: warning: âregister_jprobeâ is deprecated [-Wdeprecated-declarations]
> >> > net/sctp/probe.c:240:2: warning: âunregister_jprobeâ is deprecated [-Wdeprecated-declarations]
> >> > net/ipv4/tcp_probe.c:280:2: warning: âregister_jprobeâ is deprecated [-Wdeprecated-declarations]
> >> > net/ipv4/tcp_probe.c:298:2: warning: âunregister_jprobeâ 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