linux-kernel - Re: [devel-ipsec] [PATCH bpf-next v4 01/10] xfrm: bpf: Move xfrm_interface_bpf.c to xfrm

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: <ZXLVQuqSG7TSjQxD@gauss3.secunet.de>
Date:   Fri, 8 Dec 2023 09:35:14 +0100
From:   Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To:     Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@...il.com>
CC:     Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>, <devel@...ux-ipsec.org>,
        <eddyz87@...il.com>, <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Eyal Birger <eyal@...anetworks.com>, <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>,
        <kuba@...nel.org>, <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [devel-ipsec] [PATCH bpf-next v4 01/10] xfrm: bpf: Move
 xfrm_interface_bpf.c to xfrm_bpf.c

On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 01:08:08PM -0800, Eyal Birger wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 3:52 AM Steffen Klassert via Devel
> <devel@...ux-ipsec.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 01:56:21PM -0700, Daniel Xu wrote:
> > > This commit moves the contents of xfrm_interface_bpf.c into a new file,
> > > xfrm_bpf.c This is in preparation for adding more xfrm kfuncs. We'd like
> > > to keep all the bpf integrations in a single file.
> 
> This takes away the nice ability to reload the xfrm interface
> related kfuncs when reloading the xfrm interface.
> 
> I also find it a little strange that the kfuncs would be available
> when the xfrm interface isn't loaded.
> 
> So imho it makes sense that these kfuncs would be built
> as part of the module and not as part of the core.

I proposed to merge all the bpf extensions into one file.
With that I wanted to avoid to have 'many' files under
/net/xfrm that fall basically under bpf maintainance
scope. But if there are practical reasons to have these
spilted, I'm OK with that too.