netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 6/9] bpf: fix stack_depth usage by 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: <20170531.144320.1591618196176086735.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Wed, 31 May 2017 14:43:20 -0400 (EDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     ast@...com
Cc:     daniel@...earbox.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 6/9] bpf: fix stack_depth usage by test_bpf.ko

From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 11:39:37 -0700

> On 5/31/17 11:15 AM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
>> Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:31:32 -0700
>>
>>> test_bpf.ko doesn't call verifier before selecting interpreter or
>>> JITing,
>>> hence the tests need to manually specify the amount of stack they
>>> consume.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
>>> Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
>>
>> I do not like this and the previous patch, it seems so error prone.
> 
> in what sense 'error prone' ?

In the sense that a human computes these numbers, and nothing checks
if it is correct or not until program perhaps crashes if the value is
wrong.