On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 4:11 PM Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Did you look at the code? > In particular: > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/164735286243.1084943.7477055110527046644.stgit@devnote2/ > > it's a copy paste of arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c > > How is it "bad architecture code" ? It's "bad architecture code" because the architecture maintainers have made changes to check ENDBR in the meantime. So it used to be perfectly fine. It's not any longer - and the architecture maintainers were clearly never actually cc'd on the changes, so they didn't find out until much too late. Think of it this way: what if somebody started messing with your BPF code, never told you, and then merged the BPF changes on the basis of "hey, I used old BPF code as a base for it". In the meantime, you'd changed the calling convention for BPF, so that code - that used to be ok - now no longer actually works properly. Would you think it's ok to bypass you as a maintainer on the basis that it was based on a copy of code you maintained, and never even cc you on the changes? Or would you be unhappy? Linus
