netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v5 2/3] bpf: Add new cgroup attach type to enable sock modifications

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 30 Nov 2016 09:24:08 -0700
From:   David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, daniel@...que.org, ast@...com,
        daniel@...earbox.net, maheshb@...gle.com, tgraf@...g.ch
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 2/3] bpf: Add new cgroup attach type to enable
 sock modifications

On 11/29/16 10:41 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> I don't see a complexity. It was straightforward for skb bitfields,
> but if there is some unforeseen issue, it's better to tackle it now
> otherwise the feature may never come and this 'infra for sockets' will
> stay as 'infra for vrf only' and I'm struggling to convince myself that it's ok.
> So I'll try to tweak this patch to add these 3 fields...
> 

regardless of whether the change is attached to this patch set or sent as a follow on, I will make 2 separate patches -- 1 that adds the fields to bpf_sock and updates the filter.c code and a second patch that adds a test case and automation for it. There is no reason to combine it into 1 large patch.

If you think the use case to fail socket create based on family/proto/type checks is valid, it is valid regardless of when the patch comes.

I take your comment to mean you believe if I don't do it now then it won't get done. Am I over reading your comment? Do you really believe it?