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  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]
Date:   Tue, 15 Dec 2020 14:51:18 +0800
From:   Bob Liu <>
To:     Hannes Reinecke <>, Jens Axboe <>,
        Mike Snitzer <>,
        Sergei Shtepa <>,
Cc:     "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        Pavel Tide <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] block: blk_interposer - Block Layer Interposer

Hi Folks,

On 12/12/20 12:56 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 12/11/20 5:33 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 12/11/20 9:30 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>>> While I still think there needs to be a proper _upstream_ consumer of
>>> blk_interposer as a condition of it going in.. I'll let others make the
>>> call.
>> That's an unequivocal rule.
>>> As such, I'll defer to Jens, Christoph and others on whether your
>>> minimalist blk_interposer hook is acceptable in the near-term.
>> I don't think so, we don't do short term bandaids just to plan on
>> ripping that out when the real functionality is there. IMHO, the dm
>> approach is the way to go - it provides exactly the functionality that
>> is needed in an appropriate way, instead of hacking some "interposer"
>> into the core block layer.
> Which is my plan, too.
> I'll be working with the Veeam folks to present a joint patchset (including the DM bits) for the next round.

Besides the dm approach, do you think Veeam's original requirement is a good
use case of "block/bpf: add eBPF based block layer IO filtering"?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists