netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/6] bpf: introduce BPF_PROG_TEST

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: <67b19080-26f9-67ac-d7fa-e621a90c54bb@huawei.com>
Date:   Fri, 31 Mar 2017 11:12:23 +0800
From:   "Wangnan (F)" <wangnan0@...wei.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/6] bpf: introduce BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN command

On 2017/3/31 10:57, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 3/30/17 7:53 PM, Wangnan (F) wrote:
>> I suggest using a CONFIG option to enable/disable code in
>> test_run.o to reduce attack plane.
>
> attack plane? what attack do you see and how config helps?
>

I think all testing features are not required to be compiled
for a production system. A feature which should never be used
looks dangerous to me.

I suggest adding a CONFIG option like CONFIG_BPF_PROGRAM_TEST_RUN
to control whether the kernel should be compiled with this feature
or not. We can enable by default, and give people a chance to
turn it off. At least in my company people tends to turn all
unneeded features off. If you don't provide a config option they
will make one by themselves.

Thank you.