netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/7] bpf: add 'flags' attribute to BPF_MAP_UPDATE

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <54589B89.5000309@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 04 Nov 2014 10:25:29 +0100
From:	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
To:	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
CC:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/7] bpf: add 'flags' attribute to BPF_MAP_UPDATE_ELEM
 command

On 11/04/2014 03:54 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> the current meaning of BPF_MAP_UPDATE_ELEM syscall command is:
> either update existing map element or create a new one.
> Initially the plan was to add a new command to handle the case of
> 'create new element if it didn't exist', but 'flags' style looks
> cleaner and overall diff is much smaller (more code reused), so add 'flags'
> attribute to BPF_MAP_UPDATE_ELEM command with the following meaning:
> enum {
>    BPF_MAP_UPDATE_OR_CREATE = 0, /* add new element or update existing */
>    BPF_MAP_CREATE_ONLY,          /* add new element if it didn't exist */
>    BPF_MAP_UPDATE_ONLY           /* update existing element */
> };

 From you commit message/code I currently don't see an explanation why
it cannot be done in typical ``flags style'' as various syscalls do,
i.e. BPF_MAP_UPDATE_OR_CREATE rather represented as ...

   BPF_MAP_CREATE | BPF_MAP_UPDATE

Do you expect more than 64 different flags to be passed from user space
for BPF_MAP?

> BPF_MAP_CREATE_ONLY can fail with EEXIST if element already exists.
> BPF_MAP_UPDATE_ONLY can fail with ENOENT if element doesn't exist.
>
> Userspace will call it as:
> int bpf_update_elem(int fd, void *key, void *value, __u64 flags)
> {
>      union bpf_attr attr = {
>          .map_fd = fd,
>          .key = ptr_to_u64(key),
>          .value = ptr_to_u64(value),
>          .flags = flags;
>      };
>
>      return bpf(BPF_MAP_UPDATE_ELEM, &attr, sizeof(attr));
> }
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
--
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