From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 11:13:06 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Josef Bacik Message-ID: <20170920111306.1a74f2ec@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20170920150404.2x63t3bd4pkusoa3@destiny> References: <20170920095031.1972fba5@gandalf.local.home> <0C1E6F2D-2E7D-4477-9F35-8C59F62BB409@fb.com> <20170920150404.2x63t3bd4pkusoa3@destiny> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Josef Bacik , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org" , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC] tracepoints without user space interfaces List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 11:04:05 -0400 Josef Bacik wrote: > The tricky part is we want to be able to access these from eBPF. I argue that > eBPF is run in the kernel so it has the same rules as kernel modules. Others > seem less convinced of this argument, so it would be good to get a definitive > answer. Thanks, Note, adding a module to let eBPF access these tracepoints would also be trivial. Would a module be of issue at FB? It could be easily added at boot up. -- Steve