linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4 00/20] The Runtime Verification (RV) interface

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:   Thu, 23 Jun 2022 14:10:34 -0700
From:   Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
To:     Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...nel.org>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Gabriele Paoloni <gpaoloni@...hat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-trace-devel <linux-trace-devel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 00/20] The Runtime Verification (RV) interface

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 1:29 PM Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
<bristot@...nel.org> wrote:
>
[...]
> >>
> >> The point is that there are use-cases in which the users need the code in
> >> C. One of those is the work being done in the Linux Foundation Elisa group.
> >> There will be more formalism, like timed automata... which will require
> >> infra-structure that is easily accessible in C... including synchronization,
> >> and reactors that are available only in C on "per use-cases" basis - for
> >> example on embedded devices.
> >
> > Where can I find more information about the constraints of these use cases?
>
> Check the LF elisa workgroup.

Thanks for the information. It looks interesting.

>
> > I am asking because there are multiple ways to load a BPF program to the
> > system. If the constraint is that we cannot have bpftrace or bcc in the system,
> > maybe it is ok to run a standalone binary (written in C, compiled on a different
> > system).
>
> as I said... *I am aware of that*. I do like BPF! I was already convinced I will having
> things in BPF :-)
>
> dot2bpf does stand alone application, C + libbpf (and I did it this way to
> have the most of flexibility), it works (for the things that are possible in BPF).
> It shares most of the work in C/kernel, I will add it in the second patch series.

This is great! Looking forward to trying it out. :)

Thanks,
Song