netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] support changing steering policies in tuntap

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: <20171001062520-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date:   Sun, 1 Oct 2017 06:28:04 +0300
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] support changing steering policies in tuntap

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:09:05PM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> Programming from the guest is
> indeed different. I don't fully understand that use case.

Generally programming host BPF from guest is a clear win - think DOS
protection. Guest runs logic to detect dos attacks, then passes the
program to host.  Afterwards, host does not need to enter guest if
there's a DOS attack. Saves a ton of cycles.

The difficulty is making it work well, e.g. how do we handle maps?

-- 
MST