[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <538CAEA6.4060307@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 19:04:38 +0200
From: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Chema Gonzalez <chema@...gle.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 0/2] split BPF out of core networking
On 06/02/2014 05:41 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
...
> Glad you brought up this point :)
> 100% agree that current double verification done by seccomp is far from
> being generic and quite hard to maintain, since any change done to
> classic BPF verifier needs to be thought through from seccomp_check_filter()
> perspective as well.
Glad we're on the same page.
> BPF's input context, set of allowed calls need to be expressed in a generic way.
> Obviously this split by itself won't make classic BPF all of a sudden generic.
> It rather defines a boundary of eBPF core.
Note, I'm not at all against using it in tracing, I think it's probably
a good idea, but shouldn't we _first_ think about how to overcome such
deficits as above by improving upon its in-kernel API design, thus to
better prepare it to be generic? I feel this step is otherwise just
skipped and quickly 'hacked' around ... ;)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists