netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] net: add bpfilter

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, 20 Feb 2018 09:55:33 -0500 (EST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     pablo@...filter.org
Cc:     phil@....cc, laforge@...monks.org, fw@...len.de,
        daniel@...earbox.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, alexei.starovoitov@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] net: add bpfilter

From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 11:44:31 +0100

> * Lack of sufficient abstraction: bpf is not only exposing its own
>   software bugs through its interface, but it will also bite the dust
>   with CPU bugs due to lack of glue code to hide details behind the
>   syscall interface curtain.  That will need a kernel upgrade after all to
>   fix, so all benefits of adding new programs. We've even seem claims on
>   performance being more important than security in this mailing list.
>   Don't get me wrong, no software is safe from security issues, but if you
>   don't abstract your resources in the right way, you have more chance to
>   have experimence more problems.

I find it surprising that the person who didn't even know that
generating classical BPF was not appropriate in his patches is
suddenly a complete expert on eBPF and all of it's shortcomings.

Pablo, I am sincerely very disappointed in you, and if you continue
to attack eBPF in such an ignorant way going forward we will have
a very hard time taking you seriously at all.

Thank you.