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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 10:35:20 +0100 From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> To: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net> CC: Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 1/2] bpf: allow extended BPF programs access skb fields On 03/14/2015 05:59 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On 3/13/15 7:27 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >> On 3/13/15 7:16 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote: >>> On 03/14/2015 03:08 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >>>> On 3/13/15 7:06 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote: >>>>> On 03/14/2015 02:46 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote: >>>>> ... >>>>>> Previously, it was much more consistent, which I like better. And only >>>>>> because of the simple BUILD_BUG_ON()? :/ >>>>> >>>>> Alternative is to move all of them into a central place, something like >>>>> in twsk_build_assert() or __mld2_query_bugs[]. >>>> >>>> nope. that defeats the purpose of bug_on. >>> >>> Well, it doesn't. ;) It throws a build error thus the user is forced to >>> investigate that further. >> >> according to this distorted logic all build_bug_on can be in one file >> across the whole tree, since 'user is forced to investigate' ?! That was not what I was suggesting, and I assume you know that ... > also note that this case and twsk_build_assert are different. > twsk_build_assert has no other choice then to have one function > that covers logic in the whole file, whereas in this patch: > + BUILD_BUG_ON(FIELD_SIZEOF(struct sk_buff, mark) != 4); > + *insn++ = BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, dst_reg, src_reg, > + offsetof(struct sk_buff, mark)); > > the build_bug_on protect the line directly below. > Separating them just doesn't make sense at all. I also like the above approach better, I only suggested that as a possible alternative since you were saying earlier in this thread: I thought about it, but didn't add it, since we already have them in the same file several lines above this spot. I think one build error per .c file should be enough to attract attention. Though I'll add a comment to convert_bpf_extensions() that build_bug_on errors should be addressed in two places. Cheers, Daniel -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists