From: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>,
Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Hao Sun <sunhao.th@gmail.com>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: Restrict attachment of bpf program to some tracepoints
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2022 13:28:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y43j3IGvLKgshuhR@krava> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y4uOSrXBxVwnxZkX@google.com>
On Sat, Dec 03, 2022 at 09:58:34AM -0800, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 03:29:39PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 1:35 AM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 09:17:22AM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 1:42 AM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 01:41:23AM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > > > > > On 11/21/22 10:31 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > > > > > We hit following issues [1] [2] when we attach bpf program that calls
> > > > > > > bpf_trace_printk helper to the contention_begin tracepoint.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As described in [3] with multiple bpf programs that call bpf_trace_printk
> > > > > > > helper attached to the contention_begin might result in exhaustion of
> > > > > > > printk buffer or cause a deadlock [2].
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There's also another possible deadlock when multiple bpf programs attach
> > > > > > > to bpf_trace_printk tracepoint and call one of the printk bpf helpers.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This change denies the attachment of bpf program to contention_begin
> > > > > > > and bpf_trace_printk tracepoints if the bpf program calls one of the
> > > > > > > printk bpf helpers.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Adding also verifier check for tb_btf programs, so this can be cought
> > > > > > > in program loading time with error message like:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can't attach program with bpf_trace_printk#6 helper to contention_begin tracepoint.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CACkBjsakT_yWxnSWr4r-0TpPvbKm9-OBmVUhJb7hV3hY8fdCkw@mail.gmail.com/
> > > > > > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CACkBjsaCsTovQHFfkqJKto6S4Z8d02ud1D7MPESrHa1cVNNTrw@mail.gmail.com/
> > > > > > > [3] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/Y2j6ivTwFmA0FtvY@krava/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Reported-by: Hao Sun <sunhao.th@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > Suggested-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > include/linux/bpf.h | 1 +
> > > > > > > include/linux/bpf_verifier.h | 2 ++
> > > > > > > kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 3 +++
> > > > > > > kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > > > 4 files changed, 52 insertions(+)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
> > > > > > > index c9eafa67f2a2..3ccabede0f50 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/include/linux/bpf.h
> > > > > > > +++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
> > > > > > > @@ -1319,6 +1319,7 @@ struct bpf_prog {
> > > > > > > enforce_expected_attach_type:1, /* Enforce expected_attach_type checking at attach time */
> > > > > > > call_get_stack:1, /* Do we call bpf_get_stack() or bpf_get_stackid() */
> > > > > > > call_get_func_ip:1, /* Do we call get_func_ip() */
> > > > > > > + call_printk:1, /* Do we call trace_printk/trace_vprintk */
> > > > > > > tstamp_type_access:1; /* Accessed __sk_buff->tstamp_type */
> > > > > > > enum bpf_prog_type type; /* Type of BPF program */
> > > > > > > enum bpf_attach_type expected_attach_type; /* For some prog types */
> > > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
> > > > > > > index 545152ac136c..7118c2fda59d 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
> > > > > > > +++ b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
> > > > > > > @@ -618,6 +618,8 @@ bool is_dynptr_type_expected(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
> > > > > > > struct bpf_reg_state *reg,
> > > > > > > enum bpf_arg_type arg_type);
> > > > > > > +int bpf_check_tp_printk_denylist(const char *name, struct bpf_prog *prog);
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > /* this lives here instead of in bpf.h because it needs to dereference tgt_prog */
> > > > > > > static inline u64 bpf_trampoline_compute_key(const struct bpf_prog *tgt_prog,
> > > > > > > struct btf *btf, u32 btf_id)
> > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> > > > > > > index 35972afb6850..9a69bda7d62b 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> > > > > > > @@ -3329,6 +3329,9 @@ static int bpf_raw_tp_link_attach(struct bpf_prog *prog,
> > > > > > > return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > + if (bpf_check_tp_printk_denylist(tp_name, prog))
> > > > > > > + return -EACCES;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > btp = bpf_get_raw_tracepoint(tp_name);
> > > > > > > if (!btp)
> > > > > > > return -ENOENT;
> > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > > > > > > index f07bec227fef..b662bc851e1c 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > > > > > > @@ -7472,6 +7472,47 @@ static void update_loop_inline_state(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 subprogno
> > > > > > > state->callback_subprogno == subprogno);
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > +int bpf_check_tp_printk_denylist(const char *name, struct bpf_prog *prog)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > + static const char * const denylist[] = {
> > > > > > > + "contention_begin",
> > > > > > > + "bpf_trace_printk",
> > > > > > > + };
> > > > > > > + int i;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > + /* Do not allow attachment to denylist[] tracepoints,
> > > > > > > + * if the program calls some of the printk helpers,
> > > > > > > + * because there's possibility of deadlock.
> > > > > > > + */
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What if that prog doesn't but tail calls into another one which calls printk helpers?
> > > > >
> > > > > right, I'll deny that for all BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINT* programs,
> > > > > because I don't see easy way to check on that
> > > > >
> > > > > we can leave printk check for tracing BPF_TRACE_RAW_TP programs,
> > > > > because verifier known the exact tracepoint already
> > > >
> > > > This is all fragile and merely a stop gap.
> > > > Doesn't sound that the issue is limited to bpf_trace_printk
> > >
> > > hm, I don't have a better idea how to fix that.. I can't deny
> > > contention_begin completely, because we use it in perf via
> > > tp_btf/contention_begin (perf lock contention) and I don't
> > > think there's another way for perf to do that
> > >
> > > fwiw the last version below denies BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINT
> > > programs completely and tracing BPF_TRACE_RAW_TP with printks
> > >
> >
> > I think disabling bpf_trace_printk() tracepoint for any BPF program is
> > totally fine. This tracepoint was never intended to be attached to.
> >
> > But as for the general bpf_trace_printk() deadlocking. Should we
> > discuss how to make it not deadlock instead of starting to denylist
> > things left and right?
> >
> > Do I understand that we take trace_printk_lock only to protect that
> > static char buf[]? Can we just make this buf per-CPU and do a trylock
> > instead? We'll only fail to bpf_trace_printk() something if we have
> > nested BPF programs (rare) or NMI (also rare).
> >
> > And it's a printk(), it's never mission-critical, so if we drop some
> > message in rare case it's totally fine.
>
> What about contention_begin? I wonder if we can disallow recursions
> for those in the deny list like using bpf_prog_active..
I was testing change below which allows to check recursion just
for contention_begin tracepoint
for the reported issue we might be ok with the change that Andrii
suggested, but we could have the change below as extra precaution
jirka
---
diff --git a/include/linux/trace_events.h b/include/linux/trace_events.h
index 20749bd9db71..1c89d4292374 100644
--- a/include/linux/trace_events.h
+++ b/include/linux/trace_events.h
@@ -740,8 +740,8 @@ unsigned int trace_call_bpf(struct trace_event_call *call, void *ctx);
int perf_event_attach_bpf_prog(struct perf_event *event, struct bpf_prog *prog, u64 bpf_cookie);
void perf_event_detach_bpf_prog(struct perf_event *event);
int perf_event_query_prog_array(struct perf_event *event, void __user *info);
-int bpf_probe_register(struct bpf_raw_event_map *btp, struct bpf_prog *prog);
-int bpf_probe_unregister(struct bpf_raw_event_map *btp, struct bpf_prog *prog);
+int bpf_probe_register(struct bpf_raw_event_map *btp, struct bpf_raw_event_data *data);
+int bpf_probe_unregister(struct bpf_raw_event_map *btp, struct bpf_raw_event_data *data);
struct bpf_raw_event_map *bpf_get_raw_tracepoint(const char *name);
void bpf_put_raw_tracepoint(struct bpf_raw_event_map *btp);
int bpf_get_perf_event_info(const struct perf_event *event, u32 *prog_id,
@@ -873,31 +873,31 @@ void *perf_trace_buf_alloc(int size, struct pt_regs **regs, int *rctxp);
int perf_event_set_bpf_prog(struct perf_event *event, struct bpf_prog *prog, u64 bpf_cookie);
void perf_event_free_bpf_prog(struct perf_event *event);
-void bpf_trace_run1(struct bpf_prog *prog, u64 arg1);
-void bpf_trace_run2(struct bpf_prog *prog, u64 arg1, u64 arg2);
-void bpf_trace_run3(struct bpf_prog *prog, u64 arg1, u64 arg2,
+void bpf_trace_run1(struct bpf_raw_event_data *data, u64 arg1);
+void bpf_trace_run2(struct bpf_raw_event_data *data, u64 arg1, u64 arg2);
+void bpf_trace_run3(struct bpf_raw_event_data *data, u64 arg1, u64 arg2,
u64 arg3);
-void bpf_trace_run4(struct bpf_prog *prog, u64 arg1, u64 arg2,
+void bpf_trace_run4(struct bpf_raw_event_data *data, u64 arg1, u64 arg2,
u64 arg3, u64 arg4);
-void bpf_trace_run5(struct bpf_prog *prog, u64 arg1, u64 arg2,
+void bpf_trace_run5(struct bpf_raw_event_data *data, u64 arg1, u64 arg2,
u64 arg3, u64 arg4, u64 arg5);
-void bpf_trace_run6(struct bpf_prog *prog, u64 arg1, u64 arg2,
+void bpf_trace_run6(struct bpf_raw_event_data *data, u64 arg1, u64 arg2,
u64 arg3, u64 arg4, u64 arg5, u64 arg6);
-void bpf_trace_run7(struct bpf_prog *prog, u64 arg1, u64 arg2,
+void bpf_trace_run7(struct bpf_raw_event_data *data, u64 arg1, u64 arg2,
u64 arg3, u64 arg4, u64 arg5, u64 arg6, u64 arg7);
-void bpf_trace_run8(struct bpf_prog *prog, u64 arg1, u64 arg2,
+void bpf_trace_run8(struct bpf_raw_event_data *data, u64 arg1, u64 arg2,
u64 arg3, u64 arg4, u64 arg5, u64 arg6, u64 arg7,
u64 arg8);
-void bpf_trace_run9(struct bpf_prog *prog, u64 arg1, u64 arg2,
+void bpf_trace_run9(struct bpf_raw_event_data *data, u64 arg1, u64 arg2,
u64 arg3, u64 arg4, u64 arg5, u64 arg6, u64 arg7,
u64 arg8, u64 arg9);
-void bpf_trace_run10(struct bpf_prog *prog, u64 arg1, u64 arg2,
+void bpf_trace_run10(struct bpf_raw_event_data *data, u64 arg1, u64 arg2,
u64 arg3, u64 arg4, u64 arg5, u64 arg6, u64 arg7,
u64 arg8, u64 arg9, u64 arg10);
-void bpf_trace_run11(struct bpf_prog *prog, u64 arg1, u64 arg2,
+void bpf_trace_run11(struct bpf_raw_event_data *data, u64 arg1, u64 arg2,
u64 arg3, u64 arg4, u64 arg5, u64 arg6, u64 arg7,
u64 arg8, u64 arg9, u64 arg10, u64 arg11);
-void bpf_trace_run12(struct bpf_prog *prog, u64 arg1, u64 arg2,
+void bpf_trace_run12(struct bpf_raw_event_data *data, u64 arg1, u64 arg2,
u64 arg3, u64 arg4, u64 arg5, u64 arg6, u64 arg7,
u64 arg8, u64 arg9, u64 arg10, u64 arg11, u64 arg12);
void perf_trace_run_bpf_submit(void *raw_data, int size, int rctx,
diff --git a/include/linux/tracepoint-defs.h b/include/linux/tracepoint-defs.h
index e7c2276be33e..5312a8b149c0 100644
--- a/include/linux/tracepoint-defs.h
+++ b/include/linux/tracepoint-defs.h
@@ -46,6 +46,11 @@ typedef const int tracepoint_ptr_t;
typedef struct tracepoint * const tracepoint_ptr_t;
#endif
+struct bpf_raw_event_data {
+ struct bpf_prog *prog;
+ int __percpu *recursion;
+};
+
struct bpf_raw_event_map {
struct tracepoint *tp;
void *bpf_func;
diff --git a/include/trace/bpf_probe.h b/include/trace/bpf_probe.h
index 6a13220d2d27..a8f9c3c7c447 100644
--- a/include/trace/bpf_probe.h
+++ b/include/trace/bpf_probe.h
@@ -81,8 +81,8 @@
static notrace void \
__bpf_trace_##call(void *__data, proto) \
{ \
- struct bpf_prog *prog = __data; \
- CONCATENATE(bpf_trace_run, COUNT_ARGS(args))(prog, CAST_TO_U64(args)); \
+ struct bpf_raw_event_data *____data = __data; \
+ CONCATENATE(bpf_trace_run, COUNT_ARGS(args))(____data, CAST_TO_U64(args)); \
}
#undef DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
index 35972afb6850..5dcb32cd24e6 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
@@ -3141,9 +3141,36 @@ static int bpf_tracing_prog_attach(struct bpf_prog *prog,
return err;
}
+static bool needs_recursion_check(struct bpf_raw_event_map *btp)
+{
+ return !strcmp(btp->tp->name, "contention_begin");
+}
+
+static int bpf_raw_event_data_init(struct bpf_raw_event_data *data,
+ struct bpf_raw_event_map *btp,
+ struct bpf_prog *prog)
+{
+ int __percpu *recursion = NULL;
+
+ if (needs_recursion_check(btp)) {
+ recursion = alloc_percpu_gfp(int, GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!recursion)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+ }
+ data->recursion = recursion;
+ data->prog = prog;
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static void bpf_raw_event_data_release(struct bpf_raw_event_data *data)
+{
+ free_percpu(data->recursion);
+}
+
struct bpf_raw_tp_link {
struct bpf_link link;
struct bpf_raw_event_map *btp;
+ struct bpf_raw_event_data data;
};
static void bpf_raw_tp_link_release(struct bpf_link *link)
@@ -3151,7 +3178,8 @@ static void bpf_raw_tp_link_release(struct bpf_link *link)
struct bpf_raw_tp_link *raw_tp =
container_of(link, struct bpf_raw_tp_link, link);
- bpf_probe_unregister(raw_tp->btp, raw_tp->link.prog);
+ bpf_probe_unregister(raw_tp->btp, &raw_tp->data);
+ bpf_raw_event_data_release(&raw_tp->data);
bpf_put_raw_tracepoint(raw_tp->btp);
}
@@ -3338,17 +3366,23 @@ static int bpf_raw_tp_link_attach(struct bpf_prog *prog,
err = -ENOMEM;
goto out_put_btp;
}
+ if (bpf_raw_event_data_init(&link->data, btp, prog)) {
+ err = -ENOMEM;
+ kfree(link);
+ goto out_put_btp;
+ }
bpf_link_init(&link->link, BPF_LINK_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINT,
&bpf_raw_tp_link_lops, prog);
link->btp = btp;
err = bpf_link_prime(&link->link, &link_primer);
if (err) {
+ bpf_raw_event_data_release(&link->data);
kfree(link);
goto out_put_btp;
}
- err = bpf_probe_register(link->btp, prog);
+ err = bpf_probe_register(link->btp, &link->data);
if (err) {
bpf_link_cleanup(&link_primer);
goto out_put_btp;
diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
index 3bbd3f0c810c..d27b7dc77894 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
@@ -2252,9 +2252,8 @@ void bpf_put_raw_tracepoint(struct bpf_raw_event_map *btp)
}
static __always_inline
-void __bpf_trace_run(struct bpf_prog *prog, u64 *args)
+void __bpf_trace_prog_run(struct bpf_prog *prog, u64 *args)
{
- cant_sleep();
if (unlikely(this_cpu_inc_return(*(prog->active)) != 1)) {
bpf_prog_inc_misses_counter(prog);
goto out;
@@ -2266,6 +2265,22 @@ void __bpf_trace_run(struct bpf_prog *prog, u64 *args)
this_cpu_dec(*(prog->active));
}
+static __always_inline
+void __bpf_trace_run(struct bpf_raw_event_data *data, u64 *args)
+{
+ struct bpf_prog *prog = data->prog;
+
+ cant_sleep();
+ if (unlikely(!data->recursion))
+ return __bpf_trace_prog_run(prog, args);
+
+ if (unlikely(this_cpu_inc_return(*(data->recursion))))
+ goto out;
+ __bpf_trace_prog_run(prog, args);
+out:
+ this_cpu_dec(*(data->recursion));
+}
+
#define UNPACK(...) __VA_ARGS__
#define REPEAT_1(FN, DL, X, ...) FN(X)
#define REPEAT_2(FN, DL, X, ...) FN(X) UNPACK DL REPEAT_1(FN, DL, __VA_ARGS__)
@@ -2290,12 +2305,12 @@ void __bpf_trace_run(struct bpf_prog *prog, u64 *args)
#define __SEQ_0_11 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
#define BPF_TRACE_DEFN_x(x) \
- void bpf_trace_run##x(struct bpf_prog *prog, \
+ void bpf_trace_run##x(struct bpf_raw_event_data *data, \
REPEAT(x, SARG, __DL_COM, __SEQ_0_11)) \
{ \
u64 args[x]; \
REPEAT(x, COPY, __DL_SEM, __SEQ_0_11); \
- __bpf_trace_run(prog, args); \
+ __bpf_trace_run(data, args); \
} \
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(bpf_trace_run##x)
BPF_TRACE_DEFN_x(1);
@@ -2311,8 +2326,9 @@ BPF_TRACE_DEFN_x(10);
BPF_TRACE_DEFN_x(11);
BPF_TRACE_DEFN_x(12);
-static int __bpf_probe_register(struct bpf_raw_event_map *btp, struct bpf_prog *prog)
+static int __bpf_probe_register(struct bpf_raw_event_map *btp, struct bpf_raw_event_data *data)
{
+ struct bpf_prog *prog = data->prog;
struct tracepoint *tp = btp->tp;
/*
@@ -2326,17 +2342,17 @@ static int __bpf_probe_register(struct bpf_raw_event_map *btp, struct bpf_prog *
return -EINVAL;
return tracepoint_probe_register_may_exist(tp, (void *)btp->bpf_func,
- prog);
+ data);
}
-int bpf_probe_register(struct bpf_raw_event_map *btp, struct bpf_prog *prog)
+int bpf_probe_register(struct bpf_raw_event_map *btp, struct bpf_raw_event_data *data)
{
- return __bpf_probe_register(btp, prog);
+ return __bpf_probe_register(btp, data);
}
-int bpf_probe_unregister(struct bpf_raw_event_map *btp, struct bpf_prog *prog)
+int bpf_probe_unregister(struct bpf_raw_event_map *btp, struct bpf_raw_event_data *data)
{
- return tracepoint_probe_unregister(btp->tp, (void *)btp->bpf_func, prog);
+ return tracepoint_probe_unregister(btp->tp, (void *)btp->bpf_func, data);
}
int bpf_get_perf_event_info(const struct perf_event *event, u32 *prog_id,
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-12-05 12:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-21 21:31 [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: Restrict attachment of bpf program to some tracepoints Jiri Olsa
2022-11-24 0:41 ` Daniel Borkmann
2022-11-24 9:42 ` Jiri Olsa
2022-11-24 17:17 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-11-25 9:35 ` Jiri Olsa
2022-11-30 23:29 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-12-03 17:58 ` Namhyung Kim
2022-12-05 12:28 ` Jiri Olsa [this message]
2022-12-06 4:00 ` Namhyung Kim
2022-12-06 8:14 ` Jiri Olsa
2022-12-06 18:20 ` Namhyung Kim
2022-12-06 20:09 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-12-07 2:14 ` Namhyung Kim
2022-12-07 5:23 ` Hao Sun
2022-12-07 22:58 ` Namhyung Kim
2022-12-07 8:18 ` Jiri Olsa
2022-12-07 19:08 ` Namhyung Kim
2022-12-08 6:15 ` Namhyung Kim
2022-12-08 12:04 ` Jiri Olsa
2022-12-04 21:44 ` Jiri Olsa
2022-12-07 13:39 ` Jiri Olsa
2022-12-07 19:10 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-12-08 2:47 ` Hao Sun
2022-12-03 17:42 ` Namhyung Kim
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Y43j3IGvLKgshuhR@krava \
--to=olsajiri@gmail.com \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=haoluo@google.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=kafai@fb.com \
--cc=kpsingh@chromium.org \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=sdf@google.com \
--cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
--cc=sunhao.th@gmail.com \
--cc=yhs@fb.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox