netdev - Re: status of llvm BTF support

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: <29547671-00d0-6454-bc6f-c291c8c1bcd0@fb.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Dec 2018 16:40:09 +0000
From:   Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
To:     Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Brendan Gregg <brendan.d.gregg@...il.com>,
        "Kernel Team" <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: status of llvm BTF support



On 12/18/18 8:18 AM, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 17/12/18 22:45, Yonghong Song wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> As many of you already knew, latest bpf-next/net-next
>> kernel added supports for func_info and line_info.
> Is there a proper spec yet, against which other implementations can
>   be developed?  Or do folks still have to RTFS and reverse-engineer
>   the semantics if they want to support this in tools other than
>   LLVM and pahole?

Ed,

We are working on this and will send a patch as soon as it is ready.
I totally understand the the spec is very important now.
Totally agree with your assessment below.

Thanks,

Yonghong

> Because IMHO writing a spec should be a higher priority than
>   anything else in BTF development; and every patch series that
>   changes the format should come with a patch to update the spec.
> We're developing a format here, and acting like we don't need to
>   do things properly because we 'own' both ends — which is not
>   conducive to building an open ecosystem around it.
> 
> -Ed
>