linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 4/4] bpf: export bpf_jit

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]

Date:   Mon, 27 Sep 2021 16:01:18 +0200
From:   Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc:     Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, kernel-team@...udflare.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 4/4] bpf: export bpf_jit_current

On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 03:34 PM CEST, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 9/24/21 11:55 AM, Lorenz Bauer wrote:
>> Expose bpf_jit_current as a read only value via sysctl.
>> Signed-off-by: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>
>> ---

I find exposing stats via system configuration variables a bit
unexpected. Not sure if there is any example today that we're following.

Maybe an entry under /sys/kernel/debug would be a better fit?

That way we don't have to commit to a sysctl that might go away if we
start charging JIT allocs against memory cgroup quota.

Although that brings up question against which cgroup iptables xt_bpf
allocations should be charged? Root cgroup?