netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/11] bpf: more sock

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:   Fri, 22 Dec 2017 00:23:00 +0000
From:   Lawrence Brakmo <brakmo@...com>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>, Blake Matheny <bmatheny@...com>,
        "Alexei Starovoitov" <ast@...com>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        "Neal Cardwell" <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
        Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/11] bpf: more sock_ops callbacks

Daniel,

Dam, by mistake I copied the “consists of the following pachtes” from the previous bpf branch commit. I will send a corrected patch set in a few minutes.

Thanks,

- Lawrence

On 12/21/17, 4:03 PM, "Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:

    On 12/20/2017 10:16 PM, Lawrence Brakmo wrote:
    > This patchset adds support for:
    > 
    > - direct R or R/W access to many tcp_sock fields
    > - passing up to 4 arguments to sock_ops BPF functions
    > - tcp_sock field bpf_sock_ops_flags for controlling callbacks
    > - optionally calling sock_ops BPF program when RTO fires
    > - optionally calling sock_ops BPF program when packet is retransmitted
    > - optionally calling sock_ops BPF program when TCP state changes
    > - access to tclass and sk_txhash
    > - new selftest
    > 
    > Signed-off-by: Lawrence Brakmo <brakmo@...com>
    > 
    > Consists of the following patches:
    > [PATCH bpf 01/11] bpf: Make SOCK_OPS_GET_TCP size independent
    > [PATCH bpf 02/11] bpf: Make SOCK_OPS_GET_TCP struct independent
    > [PATCH bpf 03/11] bpf: Add write access to tcp_sock and sock fields
    > [PATCH bpf 04/11] bpf: Support passing args to sock_ops bpf function
    > [PATCH bpf 05/11] bpf: Adds field bpf_sock_ops_flags to tcp_sock
    > [PATCH bpf 06/11] bpf: Add sock_ops RTO callback
    > [PATCH bpf 07/11] bpf: Add support for reading sk_state and more
    > [PATCH bpf 08/11] bpf: Add sock_ops R/W access to tclass & sk_txhash
    > [PATCH bpf 09/11] bpf: Add BPF_SOCK_OPS_RETRANS_CB
    > [PATCH bpf 10/11] bpf: Add BPF_SOCK_OPS_STATE_CB
    > [PATCH bpf 11/11] bpf: add selftest for tcpbpf
    
    Hmm, looks like only ever [1] and [2] made it into patchwork for some
    reason and both under a different series. Something wrong with mailer
    config?
    
    Cheers,
    Daniel
    
      [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__patchwork.ozlabs.org_patch_851690_&d=DwICaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=pq_Mqvzfy-C8ltkgyx1u_g&m=Kg_lciwL9AOJWdB5GjpWeRoRn3Vx0n3O4ttPPITzmf0&s=bl0Hj1SWmDCUF9_ZkT6QI-kbMiTyUOh0xhoy0FIsS9A&e=
      [2] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__patchwork.ozlabs.org_patch_851689_&d=DwICaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=pq_Mqvzfy-C8ltkgyx1u_g&m=Kg_lciwL9AOJWdB5GjpWeRoRn3Vx0n3O4ttPPITzmf0&s=BitYJKyncTLIJ35HMAPqjXpU5gm4B4B5tDgk1KOLU6o&e=
    
      (First two in: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__patchwork.ozlabs.org_project_netdev_list_-3Fsubmitter-3D66772-26state-3D-2A&d=DwICaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=pq_Mqvzfy-C8ltkgyx1u_g&m=Kg_lciwL9AOJWdB5GjpWeRoRn3Vx0n3O4ttPPITzmf0&s=0BGtuzYNs3pIzBEnWZUpCVEyT0DcZqccyQwAk5H1SH8&e=)