linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] bpf: Suggestion on bpf syscall interface

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <5516E32B.6030502@plumgrid.com>
Date:	Sat, 28 Mar 2015 10:21:47 -0700
From:	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
To:	He Kuang <hekuang@...wei.com>
CC:	wangnan0@...wei.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] bpf: Suggestion on bpf syscall interface

On 3/28/15 4:36 AM, He Kuang wrote:
> Hi, Alexei
>
> In our end-end IO module project, we use bpf maps to record
> configurations. According to current bpf syscall interface, we
> should specify map_fd to lookup/update bpf maps, so we are
> restricted to do config in the same user program.

you can pass map_fd and prog_fd from one process to another via normal
scm_rights mechanism.

> My suggestion is to export this kind of operations to sysfs, so
> we can load&attach bpf progs and config it seperately. We
> implement this feature in our demo project. What's your opinion
> on this?

Eventually we may use single sysfs file for lsmod-like listings, but I
definitely don't want to create parallel interface to maps via sysfs.
It's way too expensive and not really suitable for binary key/values.


--
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/