linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 3/4] bpf: add support for persistent maps/progs

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: <562135F0.5050401@plumgrid.com>
Date:	Fri, 16 Oct 2015 10:37:52 -0700
From:	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
To:	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
	davem@...emloft.net
Cc:	viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, ebiederm@...ssion.com, tgraf@...g.ch,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/4] bpf: add support for persistent maps/progs

On 10/16/15 10:27 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>> but don't know how flexible we are in
>>> terms of adding S_IFBPF to the UAPI.
>>
>> I don't think it should be a problem. You referred to POSIX Standard in
>> your other mail but I can't see any reason why not to establish a new
>> file mode. Anyway, FreeBSD (e.g. whiteouts) and Solaris (e.g. Doors,
>> Event Ports) are just examples of new modes being added.
>>
>> mknod /bpf/map/1 m 1 1
>>
>> :)
>>
>> Yes, maybe I think this is a better solution architectural instead of
>> constructing a new filesystem.
>
> Yeah, also 'man 2 stat' lists a couple of others used by various systems.
>
> The pro's of this approach would be that no new file system would be needed
> and the special inode could be placed on top of any 'regular' file system
> that would support special files. I do like that as well.

I don't like it at all for the reasons you've just stated:
'it will prevent us doing shell style access to such files'

> I'm wondering whether this would prevent us in future from opening access
> to shell tools etc on that special file, but probably one could provide a
> default set of file ops via init_special_inode() that could be overloaded
> by the underlying fs if required.

and also because adding new S_ISSOCK-like bit for bpf feel as a begining
of nightmare, since sooner or later all filesystems would need to have
a check for it like they have for sock type.

--
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/