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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 18:58:00 -0700 From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com> To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, <josef@...icpanda.com> CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <ast@...nel.org>, <kernel-team@...com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2][v2] Add the ability to do BPF directed error injection On 10/31/17 6:55 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com> > Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 11:45:55 -0400 > >> v1->v2: >> - moved things around to make sure that bpf_override_return could really only be >> used for an ftrace kprobe. >> - killed the special return values from trace_call_bpf. >> - renamed pc_modified to bpf_kprobe_state so bpf_override_return could tell if >> it was being called from an ftrace kprobe context. >> - reworked the logic in kprobe_perf_func to take advantage of bpf_kprobe_state. >> - updated the test as per Alexei's review. >> >> A lot of our error paths are not well tested because we have no good way of >> injecting errors generically. Some subystems (block, memory) have ways to >> inject errors, but they are random so it's hard to get reproduceable results. >> >> With BPF we can add determinism to our error injection. We can use kprobes and >> other things to verify we are injecting errors at the exact case we are trying >> to test. This patch gives us the tool to actual do the error injection part. >> It is very simple, we just set the return value of the pt_regs we're given to >> whatever we provide, and then override the PC with a dummy function that simply >> returns. >> >> Right now this only works on x86, but it would be simple enough to expand to >> other architectures. Thanks, > > This appears to moreso target the tracing tree than the networking tree. > > Let me know if that's not the case and I should be the one intergrating > these changes. i don't think it will apply to anything but net-next. If it goes any other tree we will have major conflicts during merge window. btw I haven't reviewed them for the second time.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists