netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v4 2/3] bpf: Add bpf_current_task_under

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

Message-ID: <20160812152120.GA41700@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com>
Date:	Fri, 12 Aug 2016 08:21:21 -0700
From:	Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 2/3] bpf: Add bpf_current_task_under_cgroup
 helper

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 09:29:35AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 09:40:39AM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > > I actually wish we could rename skb_in_cgroup to skb_under_cgroup. If we ever
> > > introduced a check for absolute membership versus ancestral membership, what
> > > would we call that?
> > 
> > That option is, by the way, still on the table for -net tree, since 4.8 is not
> > released yet, so it could still be renamed into BPF_FUNC_skb_under_cgroup.
> > 
> > Then you could make this one here for -net-next as "BPF_FUNC_current_under_cgroup".
> > 
> > Tejun, Alexei?
> 
> lol I should have read the whole thread before replying twice.  Sorry
> about that.  Yeah, if we can still rename it, let's do "under".  It's
> more intuitive and gives us the room to implement the real "in" test
> if ever necessary in the future.

agree. Thanks for explaining 'in' vs 'under' terminology.
since we can still rename skb_in_cgroup we should do it.

and since that was my only nit for this patch.
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>

All 3 patches should go via net-next and to avoid conflicts 1/3 can be
in cgroup tree as well (if you think there will be conflicts).
We did that in the past with tip and net-next and it worked out well.
Daniel or Martin, do you mind preparing in->under renaming patch for net?

Thanks!