linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next] net: remove check in __cgroup_bpf_run_filter

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: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 15:47:29 -0800
From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>
To: Oliver Crumrine <ozlinuxc@...il.com>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
Cc: ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, john.fastabend@...il.com,
 andrii@...nel.org, song@...nel.org, yonghong.song@...ux.dev,
 kpsingh@...nel.org, haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
 bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next] net: remove check in
 __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb

On 2/13/24 10:37 AM, Oliver Crumrine wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 08:49:14AM -0800, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
>> On 02/09, Oliver Crumrine wrote:
>>> Originally, this patch removed a redundant check in
>>> BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_EGRESS, as the check was already being done in
>>> the function it called, __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb. For v2, it was
>>> reccomended that I remove the check from __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb,
>>> and add the checks to the other macro that calls that function,
>>> BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_INGRESS.
>>>
>>> To sum it up, checking that the socket exists and that it is a full
>>> socket is now part of both macros BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_EGRESS and
>>> BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_INGRESS, and it is no longer part of the
>>> function they call, __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Oliver Crumrine <ozlinuxc@...il.com>
>>
>> Acked-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
> 
> Quick question: My subject had "net:" in it. Should it have had "bpf:" in
> the subject instead?
> 
> If yes, would this warrant another version of this patch or resending it
> with a different subject?

I fixed it up with "bpf:". Applied. Thanks.