netdev - Re: [PATCH nf-next] netfilter: xt

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: <20161205224051.GB16819@breakpoint.cc>
Date:   Mon, 5 Dec 2016 23:40:51 +0100
From:   Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To:     Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
Cc:     Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
        netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        daniel@...earbox.net, Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH nf-next] netfilter: xt_bpf: support ebpf

Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 10:30:01PM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2016-12-05 at 15:28 -0500, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > > > From: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Add support for attaching an eBPF object by file descriptor.
> > > > 
> > > > The iptables binary can be called with a path to an elf object or a
> > > > pinned bpf object. Also pass the mode and path to the kernel to be
> > > > able to return it later for iptables dump and save.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
> > > > ---
> > > 
> > > Assuming there is no simple way to get variable matchsize in iptables,
> > > this looks good to me, thanks.
> > 
> > It should be possible by setting kernel .matchsize to ~0 which
> > suppresses strict size enforcement.
> > 
> > Its currently only used by ebt_among, but this should work for any xtables
> > module.
> 
> This is likely going to trigger a large rewrite of the core userspace
> iptables codebase, and likely going to pull part of the mess we have
> in ebtables into iptables. So I'd prefer not to follow this path.

Fair enough, I have no objections to the patch.