netdev - Re: RFC: New BGF 'LOOP' instruction

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: <287257a8aadbeea2a7bb5e57b855dd2d@localhost>
Date:	Tue, 03 Aug 2010 11:03:21 +0200
From:	Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@...u.net>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	<leonerd@...nerd.org.uk>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: New BGF 'LOOP' instruction


On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 22:18:13 -0700 (PDT), David Miller wrote:

> Oh yeah, what is an iteration in your definition?  See this is why I
> totally refuse to add a looping construct to BPF.
> 
> If you just check for a single loop hitting, the user will just use
> a chaining of two looping constructs.  And then three levels of
> indirection, then four, etc.  He can run up to just before exhasting
> the "iteration limit" of one loop, and branch to the next one, and
> so on and so forth.

I am aware of any problems caused by complex instructions. David, I was
rather curious to see an unrecognized and ground breaking instructions, I
don't wanted to scotch any (possible) improvement.

HGN
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html