netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/5] cgroup: add bpf

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: <20160817175615.GA10620@htj.duckdns.org>
Date:	Wed, 17 Aug 2016 13:56:16 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...com>
To:	Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
CC:	Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>, <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	<ast@...com>, <davem@...emloft.net>, <kafai@...com>,
	<fw@...len.de>, <pablo@...filter.org>, <harald@...hat.com>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/5] cgroup: add bpf_{e,in}gress pointers

Hello,

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:50:40AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > +config CGROUP_BPF
> > +	bool "Enable eBPF programs in cgroups"
> > +	depends on BPF_SYSCALL
> > +	help
> > +	  This options allows cgroups to accommodate eBPF programs that
> > +	  can be used for network traffic filtering and accounting. See
> > +	  Documentation/networking/filter.txt for more information.
> > +
> 
> I think this extra config is unnecessary. It makes the code harder to follow.
> Anyone turning on bpf syscall and cgroups should be able to have this feature.
> Extra config is imo overkill.

Agreed, the added code is pretty small, especially in comparison to
both cgroup and bpf, and the only memory overhead would be four
pointers per cgroup, which shouldn't be noticeable at all.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun