Re: [PATCH HID for-next v3 3/5] HID: bpf: enforce HID_BPF dependencies

[Florent Revest]

On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 3:58 PM Benjamin Tissoires
<benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 3:59 PM Benjamin Tissoires
> <benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > As mentioned in the link below, having JIT and BPF is not enough to
> > have fentry/fexit/fmod_ret APIs. This resolves the error that
> > happens on a system without tracing enabled when hid-bpf tries to
> > load itself.
> >
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/CABRcYmKyRchQhabi1Vd9RcMQFCcb=EtWyEbFDFRTc-L-U8WhgA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Fixes: f5c27da4e3c8 ("HID: initial BPF implementation")
> > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > ---
> >
> > no changes in v3
> >
> > changes in v2:
> > - dropped ALLOW_ERROR_INJECTION requirement
>
> Florent, can I keep your reviewed-by on this patch?

Yes! :)
Reviewed-by: Florent Revest <revest@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Thank you for the updated series, I think it's cleaner than relying on
error injection indeed.

I still believe that, in the future, BPF should offer a proxy config
to expose if BPF tracing is supported because 1- the implementation of
BPF tracing could someday change 2- to be exactly correct, ftrace
direct call isn't _really_ a sufficient condition either: the BPF JIT
also needs to implement the arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline function.
Currently, there is no config to check if that feature is available.
But as agreed in a previous thread, that consolidation can be done
separately. For now your patch looks good enough to me already.