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]

Message-ID: <e66f1c26-b769-a9dc-ec69-7fa1f138e614@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 3 Oct 2017 09:09:24 -0700
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        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 10/3/17 9:01 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> 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?

The pretty print code I have is based on the verifier code from
February. At this point I forget all of the changes I made to it in the
past 7 months.

I agree that it would be best to try to pull the verifier code into a
separate file for easier re-use and keeping the tool up to date.