netdev - Re: pull-request: bpf-next 2018-12-11

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: <20181210.180318.103295257824434879.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Mon, 10 Dec 2018 18:03:18 -0800 (PST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     daniel@...earbox.net
Cc:     ast@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: pull-request: bpf-next 2018-12-11

From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 01:33:56 +0100

> It has three minor merge conflicts, resolutions:
> 
> 1) tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> 
>  Take first chunk with alignment_prevented_execution. 
> 
> 2) net/core/filter.c
> 
>   [...]
>   case bpf_ctx_range_ptr(struct __sk_buff, flow_keys):
>   case bpf_ctx_range(struct __sk_buff, wire_len):
>         return false;
>   [...]
> 
> 3) include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> 
>   Take the second chunk for the two cases each.

Thanks for this guidance.

I'm not %100 sure I got case #3 correct.  The two sets of
text talk about hashing over the "packet" vs. the "tuple".
These intefaces take a tuple, so it only makes sense to
talk about hashing over a tuple so I chose the hunk
which says "tuple".

I had to deal with this during the net --> net-next merge
last night as well.

Please double check my work and send me any relative fixups which
might be necessary.

Thanks!