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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <d9bc0627-c409-a6b6-b50c-aa84cb9f3186@huawei.com>
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.