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]

Date:	Fri, 6 Dec 2013 11:15:58 -0000
From:	"David Laight" <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:	"Daniel Borkmann" <dborkman@...hat.com>
Cc:	"Eric Dumazet" <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Michal Sekletár <sekletar.m@...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

> From: Daniel Borkmann 
> On 12/06/2013 10:50 AM, David Laight wrote:
> >> if SO_BPF_EXTENSIONS is supported, than you can assume that all current
> >> extensions are supported.
> >>
> >> No need to consume one bit per feature, as all these features wont ever
> >> disappear from linux.
> >
> > However one of the BSDs could add a subset of the features and
> > wish to advertise the fact.
> > So using extra flags for non-trivial extensions could be useful.
> 
> Haven't had a closer look at the BSD BPF code /yet/, so ...

I've not looked either.

>   i) Does BSD have such extensions and if so do we overlap some?
> 
> ii) Is it planned to also introduce SO_BPF_EXTENSIONS for BSD kernels
>      to have one common api (that i.e. libpcap would then make use of)?

If it is useful to add any of the extensions, and they don't collide
with any other existing changes, then they might be added.
Adding a request that indicates which extensions are supported should
be easier than adding the extensions themselves.
Adding all the Linux extensions at once could be problematic.

	David