Re: [RFC bpf-next v4 0/7] Introduce eBPF support for HID devices (new attempt)

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 10:02 AM Benjamin Tissoires
<benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 6:23 AM Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 09:12:09AM +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> > >
> > > Also, I wonder if we should not have some way to namespace kfuncs.
> > > Ideally, I would like to prevent the usage of those kfuncs outside of
> > > some helpers that I define in HID so I don't have to worry too much
> > > about other trace programs fuzzing and segfaulting the kernel.
> >
> > That would be a great feature to have. Other folks expressed the same interest.
> > Just grouping them by prog type is not flexible enough.
> > It feels kfuncs could be scoped by (prog_type, attach_btf_id or attach_hook) pair.
> > What are your thoughts?
> >
>
> Scoping by attach_btf_id is very appealing to me (attach_hook less TBH):
> I have internal functions I do not want normal users to use, and also
> it would also restrict who can call what in the more general case.
>
> However, I don't think I'll put that effort in v5. It is a nice to
> have feature IMO, but not really required ATM.

Great. Looking forward to it.