netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 3/9] bpf: pre-allocate hash map elements

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]

Date:	Mon, 7 Mar 2016 10:29:06 -0800
From:	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
To:	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de>,
	Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com>,
	Wang Nan <wangnan0@...wei.com>, He Kuang <hekuang@...wei.com>,
	Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
	Brendan Gregg <brendan.d.gregg@...il.com>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/9] bpf: pre-allocate hash map elements

On 3/7/16 3:08 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 03/07/2016 02:58 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> [...]
>> ---
>>   include/linux/bpf.h      |   1 +
>>   include/uapi/linux/bpf.h |   3 +
>>   kernel/bpf/hashtab.c     | 264
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>>   kernel/bpf/syscall.c     |   2 +-
>>   4 files changed, 196 insertions(+), 74 deletions(-)
>
> Shouldn't all other map types (like array) need something like this as
> well to
> reserve this for their future flags?
>
>    if (attr->map_flags)
>      return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);

yeah. good point. will add another patch for that.

>> diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
>> index 4b070827200d..c81efb10bbb5 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/bpf.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
>> @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ struct bpf_map {
>>       u32 key_size;
>>       u32 value_size;
>>       u32 max_entries;
>> +    u32 map_flags;
>
> Just naming this 'flags' doesn't work due to the anonymous struct inside
> that
> union, right? :/

yep. exactly. there is already 'flags' member there.

>>
>> +#define BPF_F_NO_PREALLOC    (1ULL << 0)
>
> Nit: Should better be (1U << 0) as map_flags are of __u32.

right. will do.