netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v1 6/7] bpf: Use the bpf_load

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: <5898FC39.90701@iogearbox.net>
Date:   Mon, 06 Feb 2017 23:44:09 +0100
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
CC:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1 6/7] bpf: Use the bpf_load_program() from
 the library

On 02/06/2017 10:30 PM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> On 06/02/2017 20:18, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> On 02/06/2017 08:16 PM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>>> On 06/02/2017 16:30, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>>> On 02/06/2017 12:14 AM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>>>>> Replace bpf_prog_load() with bpf_load_program() calls.
>>>>>
>>>>> Use the tools include directory instead of the installed one to allow
>>>>> builds from other kernels.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
>>>>> Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
>>>>> Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
>>>>> Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>     tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile        |  6 +++++-
>>>>>     tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_sys.h       | 21
>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>>     tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_tag.c      |  6 ++++--
>>>>>     tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c |  8 +++++---
>>>>>     4 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> No objections, but if so, can't we add the remaining missing
>>>> pieces to bpf lib, so we can remove bpf_sys.h altogether?
>>>
>>> OK, I'll send a new patch replacing bpf_sys.h entirely.
>>
>> Sounds great, thanks!
>
> Do you prefer a big patch or one for each replaced function?

I think it makes sense to split it into two: i) this patch as-is
for the prog part, and ii) rest for maps.