netdev - Re: [PATCH iproute2 -next] tc, bpf: finalize eBPF support for cls and act front-end

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: <552517E2.2070709@mojatatu.com>
Date:	Wed, 08 Apr 2015 07:58:26 -0400
From:	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To:	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
CC:	stephen@...workplumber.org, ast@...mgrid.com, jiri@...nulli.us,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2 -next] tc, bpf: finalize eBPF support for cls
 and act front-end

Maybe i should be reading backwards;-> But i skipped a few emails
instead.

On 04/01/15 18:30, Thomas Graf wrote:
> On 04/01/15 at 04:13pm, Daniel Borkmann wrote:

>> I see it as a way to offer a generic, fast and 'safe' option for
>> classifier and action developers to have a programmable data path
>> in the traffic control subsystem in the kernel, which I think is
>> very powerful and important in various use-cases. I regard it as
>> a similar way and elegant solution as tcpdump or nftables resolve
>> their problems internally, in other words, to provide a _generic_
>> solution to address _specific, customized_ issues. Perhaps an anti
>> feature-bloat, if you will. ;) My viewpoint is that this ties well
>> together into the kernel landscape, and also makes us improve
>> various other subsystems that it makes use of, successively.
>
> Alexei will remember that I gave him a hard time with the exact
> same remarks as Jamal brought up when he presented this in New
> Orleans ;-)
>

I think you hit on my concern. The potential of another frankestein
exists here.

> What turned my viewpoint around was the knowledge that function
> calls are limited. eBPF programs can only make calls to functions
> which have been specifically whitelisted for eBPF programs. This
> policy is enforced by the kernel through the verifier. Exported
> symbols are not automatically whitelisted. So an eBPF program
> can't call into drivers or use arbitrary kernel APIs and is thus
> a lot more restricted than a kernel module.
>

I havent seen much restriction in the sample code posted by Daniel.
Dont get me wrong, I like ebpf (when ovs was being presented i didnt
say I liked it, but if you recall did protest the frankestein factor).

cheers,
jamal
--
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