netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 0/8] Introduce bpf ID

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: <5e8b1713-0220-5c53-210d-8040efd36cfb@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Jun 2017 12:52:28 -0600
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>, Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 0/8] Introduce bpf ID

On 6/1/17 12:27 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> 'I want to retrieve original instructions' is not a problem. It's a
> push for 'solution'. Explaining 'why' you want to see original
> instructions would describe the actual problem.

I have explained this.

You are creating this hyper-complex almost completely invisible
infrastructure. You are enabling binary blobs that can bypass the
network stack and modify packets with almost no introspection on what is
happening. BPF code can from a variety of sources -- OS vendors,
upstream repos, 3rd party vendors (eg., H/W vendors), and "in-house"
development. Each will swear to the end that any observed problem is not
with their code. In my experience, it falls on to the OS and kernel
experts to figure out why Linux is breaking something. To do that we
need tools to look at what code is running where and something that can
be used in production environments not requiring a disruption to the
service that the box is providing.