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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 31 Mar 2017 11:37:16 +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 11:24, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 3/30/17 8:12 PM, Wangnan (F) wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> It is required on production system, since xdp testing and
> xdp production has to use the same kernel. We cannot
> keep rebooting the server back and forth to test and then to run.
> It's not testing the kernel features, it's testing bpf programs
> which are technically user space components.
>

Okay. Now I understand it is a production feature.

Thank you.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists