netdev - Re: [PATCH v8 net-next 2/2] net: filter: split filter.h and expose eBPF to user space

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <540181E1.8070702@redhat.com>
Date:	Sat, 30 Aug 2014 09:48:49 +0200
From:	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
To:	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
CC:	Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Chema Gonzalez <chema@...gle.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Brendan Gregg <brendan.d.gregg@...il.com>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 net-next 2/2] net: filter: split filter.h and expose
 eBPF to user space

On 08/30/2014 01:01 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
...
> imo it's a consistency issue. If main uapi header is ebpf.h then
> corresponding kernel internal header should be ebpf.h as well
> and kernel/ebpf/ directory and so on.

I don't think that has to be enforced, but fair enough, if you
feel that way.

> That's why I insist on uapi/linux/bpf.h and no other name.
...
> them into bpf_common.h. My request is let's not fight about it
> right now. We didn't even cross the bridge yet and arguing
> about beauty of user apps that come in 30 patches from now...
...
> So these two patches are mainly establishing _intent_ and bpf.h file
> name. That's why I'm so paranoid about naming.

I understand, and that's why I said it could also be resolved later
in my previous email (at latest before it gets shipped though), but
just to give this some thought ...

I have attached one example, it doesn't have to be that way, but it's
one possibility if you want to stay with linux/bpf.h only.

View attachment "0001-net-filter-split-filter.h-and-expose-eBPF-to-user-sp.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (12238 bytes)