linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 net-next 12/12] bpf: mini eBPF library, test stubs and verifier testsuite

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

Message-ID: <541A045E.3030206@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 17 Sep 2014 23:59:58 +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>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
	Chema Gonzalez <chema@...gle.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 net-next 12/12] bpf: mini eBPF library, test stubs
 and verifier testsuite

On 09/17/2014 06:17 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 12:16 AM, Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> That actually still doesn't answer my question why the test stub
>> cannot live in lib/test_bpf where we have our actual testing
>> framework for eBPF/BPF, also since you exactly only build test_stub.c
>> when TEST_BPF is enabled which is the Kconfig for lib/test_bpf.
>
> multiple reasons:
> 1.
> lib/test_bpf.c is a module, whereas test_stub.c is kernel builtin.
>
> 2.
> I wasn't sure that reusing CONFIG_TEST_BPF for this
> purpose was a good idea. May be it's better to introduce
> CONFIG_BPF_VERIFIER_TEST_STUBS or something.
>
> 3.
> kernel/bpf/test_stubs.c can be removed once real tracing
> or socket use case is in.

Yes, please, lets go for point 3 at the very least.
--
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/