netdev - Re: [iproute2 net-next 1/8] lib bpf: Add support for BPF_PROG_ATTACH and BPF_PROG

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]

Date:   Sun, 11 Dec 2016 00:18:20 +0100
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        stephen@...workplumber.org
Subject: Re: [iproute2 net-next 1/8] lib bpf: Add support for BPF_PROG_ATTACH
 and BPF_PROG_DETACH

On 12/10/2016 11:15 PM, David Ahern wrote:
> On 12/10/16 2:21 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>>
>>> Please name it bpf_prog_create() then, it would be consistent to
>>> bpf_map_create() and shorter as well.
>>
>> Sorry, lack of coffee, scratch that.
>>
>> Can't the current bpf_prog_attach() stay as is, and you name the above new
>> functions bpf_prog_attach_fd() and bpf_prog_detach_fd()? I think that would
>> be better.
>
> ok. no concerns about consistency with libbpf in the kernel repo?
>
> Seems like making iproute2 and the kernel version the same will allow samples and code to move between them much easier.

I think the lib/bpf.c code is quite different anyway, so I don't think it's
much of a concern or even requirement to look exactly the same as the samples
code (it was also never designed with such requirement). But besides that,
it's also trivial enough from reading the code due to the BPF_PROG_ATTACH
and BPF_PROG_DETACH anyway.