linux-kernel - [Question] bpf: about a new 'tools/bpf/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]

Date:   Thu, 26 Jul 2018 02:23:32 +0900
From:   Taeung Song <treeze.taeung@...il.com>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
Cc:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [Question] bpf: about a new 'tools/bpf/bpf_dwarf2btf'

Hi,

Building bpf programs with .BTF section,
I thought it'd be better to convert dwarf info to .BTF by
a new tool such as 'tools/bpf/bpf_dwarf2btf' instead of pahole
in the future.

Currently for bpf binary that have .BTF section,
we need to use pahole from https://github.com/iamkafai/pahole/tree/btf
with the command line such as "pahole -J bpf_prog.o".

I think it is great but if implementing new 'bpf_dwarf2btf'
(dwarf parsing + btf encoder code written by Martin KaFai Lau on
the pahole project i.e. btf.h, btf_encoder.c, btf_encoder.h, libbtf.c, 
libbtf.h),
BPF developers would more easily use functionalities based on BTF.

What do you think about this ? Do you think this is needed ?
Or, already implementing something like this ?

If it is needed, I want to try to make 'tools/bpf/bpf_dwarf2btf'
based on the pahole code. I'd appreciate it, if you reply to this

Thanks,
Taeung