netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/3] bpf: Store/dump license string for loaded program

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: <20180425161527.w7xgpg75npdx2zmb@ast-mbp>
Date:   Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:15:29 -0600
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Quentin Monnet <quentin.monnet@...ronome.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] bpf: Store/dump license string for loaded program

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 12:17:13PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 02:11:36PM -0600, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 08:59:24AM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > hi,
> > > sending the change to store and dump the license
> > > info for loaded BPF programs. It's important for
> > > us get the license info, when investigating on
> > > screwed up machine.
> > 
> > hmm. boolean flag whether bpf prog is gpl or not
> > is already exposed via bpf_prog_info.
> 
> hum, I can't see that (on bpf-next/master)
> would the attached change be ok with you?
> 
> jirka
> 
> 
> ---
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> index e6679393b687..2ce9c9d41c2b 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> @@ -1062,6 +1062,7 @@ struct bpf_prog_info {
>  	__u32 ifindex;
>  	__u64 netns_dev;
>  	__u64 netns_ino;
> +	__u16 gpl_compatible:1;
>  } __attribute__((aligned(8)));

ahh. I swear there were patches to add it and I thought we accepted them.
Also just noticed that commit 675fc275a3a2d added 4-byte hole in there.
So I'm thinking we can fill the hole with 
 	__u32 ifindex;
+	__u32 gpl_compatible:1;
 	__u64 netns_dev;
 	__u64 netns_ino;

and keep adding bit fields in there without breaking user space.
Such patch would need to go to bpf tree.