linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 tip 1/7] bpf: make internal bpf API independent of CONFIG_BPF

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAMEtUuwh_P36K6+7NweYLsKrpnbLiNOtAazfJiKk8pUQfszfQg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 2 Mar 2015 08:58:19 -0800
From:	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
To:	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc:	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 tip 1/7] bpf: make internal bpf API independent of
 CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL ifdefs

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:26 AM, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
> On 03/02/2015 12:51 PM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> (2015/03/02 20:10), Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, currently all possible map types (hash table, array map) that
>>> would actually call into bpf_register_map_type() are only built when
>>> CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL is enabled (see kernel/bpf/Makefile). I don't think
>>> new map additions should be added that are not under kernel/bpf/ and/or
>>> enabled outside the CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL, as it should be considered
>>> part of the eBPF core code.

agree. New map types will be only under kernel/bpf/
since this is really core infra that every component should be
able to share.

>>> The difference here (this patch) is simply that we don't want users to
>>> build ifdef spaghetti constructs in user code, so the API that is
>>> actually used by eBPF _users_ is being properly ifdef'ed in the headers.

+1

>> Or, maybe we'd better move them into new include/linux/bpf_prog.h which
>> includes basic include/linux/bpf.h. Then, user can include the bpf_prog.h
>> instead of bpf.h. Also, we can check CONFIG_BPF_SYSCAL=y at the top of
>> bpf_prog.h. This makes things clearer :)
>
> I'm preferring the 1st variant, though. We have currently two native eBPF
> users, that is, socket filters and tc's cls_bpf (queued in net-next) and
> looking at the code/API usage, it's really not that hard, where it would
> justify to move this to an extra header file, really.

agree. new header seems overkill to fix something
that is not an issue today.
--
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/