netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/3] tools: bpftool: add documentation

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]

Date:   Tue, 03 Oct 2017 18:01:26 +0200
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
CC:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, oss-drivers@...ronome.com,
        David Beckett <david.beckett@...ronome.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/3] tools: bpftool: add documentation

On 10/03/2017 05:39 PM, David Ahern wrote:
> On 10/2/17 9:29 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 06:35:09PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>>> will pretty print them as verifier output as well?
>>>
>>> We tried to use LLVM as a library for this but the interface is
>>> painfully unstable and it's a heavy dependency.  The current thinking
>>> is to try to put the instruction printing code in some higher level
>>> library, but I would rather leave that as a follow up.
>>
>> follow up, of course.
>> Not depending on llvm is must have for this tool.
>> I think we need tiny and simple tools first.
>> Since you're using gpl+bsd license for this tool I think
>> it would be fine to copy-paste verifier's pretty print code into it.
>
> I have done that including integrating it into bpf-tool.

Great, to avoid letting the pretty print code become stale,
could the printer be ripped out of the verifier into its own
file or header under kernel/bpf/ such that it can be used from
kernel but also integrated from bpftool compilation? There's
likely not much kernel specifics in there anyway, wdyt?