linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.10 04/19] bpf: Add _kernel suffix to internal lockdown_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>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YRj9pl459cFK+2kJ@kroah.com>
Date:   Sun, 15 Aug 2021 13:42:30 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 04/19] bpf: Add _kernel suffix to internal
 lockdown_bpf_read

On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 11:57:58PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> Hi Pavel,
> 
> On 8/13/21 9:55 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
> > > 
> > > commit 71330842ff93ae67a066c1fa68d75672527312fa upstream.
> > > 
> > > Rename LOCKDOWN_BPF_READ into LOCKDOWN_BPF_READ_KERNEL so we have naming
> > > more consistent with a LOCKDOWN_BPF_WRITE_USER option that we are
> > > adding.
> > 
> > As far as I can tell, next bpf patch does not depend on this one and
> > we don't need it in 5.10. (Likely same situation with 5.13).
> 
> Yeah, it's nice to have for consistency given also small as well, but
> also fully okay to drop it as there shouldn't be any conflict.
> 

Ok, now dropped, thanks.

greg k-h