netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: introduce SO_BPF

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: <CAJ7VeQwC7xPPujCN8kQ3KcJAhykwQXLFA=vw2gWABmpUvuz1og@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 5 Dec 2013 18:28:19 +0100
From:	Michal Sekletár <sekletar.m@...il.com>
To:	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Michal Sekletar <msekleta@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: introduce SO_BPF_EXTENSIONS

On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 11/28/2013 06:31 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 2013-11-28 at 12:57 +0100, Michal Sekletar wrote:
>>
>>> +enum {
>>> +       BPF_ANC_FLAG_PROTOCOL         = (1 << 0),
>>> +       BPF_ANC_FLAG_PKTTYPE          = (1 << 1),
>>> +       BPF_ANC_FLAG_IFINDEX          = (1 << 2),
>>> +       BPF_ANC_FLAG_NLATTR           = (1 << 3),
>>> +       BPF_ANC_FLAG_NLATTR_NEST      = (1 << 4),
>>> +       BPF_ANC_FLAG_MARK             = (1 << 5),
>>> +       BPF_ANC_FLAG_QUEUE            = (1 << 6),
>>> +       BPF_ANC_FLAG_HATYPE           = (1 << 7),
>>> +       BPF_ANC_FLAG_RXHASH           = (1 << 8),
>>> +       BPF_ANC_FLAG_CPU              = (1 << 9),
>>> +       BPF_ANC_FLAG_ALU_XOR_X        = (1 << 10),
>>> +       BPF_ANC_FLAG_SECCOMP_LD_W     = (1 << 11),
>>> +       BPF_ANC_FLAG_VLAN_TAG         = (1 << 12),
>>> +       BPF_ANC_FLAG_VLAN_TAG_PRESENT = (1 << 13),
>>> +       BPF_ANC_FLAG_PAY_OFFSET       = (1 << 14),
>>> +};
>>> +
>>
>>
>> Why spending 15 bits (out of 32), for all these extensions ?
>>
>> It seems a single one should be enough.
>>
>> I do not think we will ever remove one of these extension.
>
>
> Agreed, this will just cripple of us adding other extensions in
> terms of uapi. I assume there won't be so much more extensions,
> but it's of course hard to predict the future. ;-)
>

Not sure I follow. Can you please elaborate on the explanation. Please
bare with me this is my first kernel patch submission.

Thanks,

Michal

> --
> 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
--
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