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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2019 20:35:08 +0200 From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, ast@...nel.org, joe@...d.net.nz, yhs@...com, andrii.nakryiko@...il.com, kafai@...com Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 01/16] bpf: implement lookup-free direct value access for maps On 04/07/2019 04:57 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: [...] > I don't get this shadow vs normal .data idea. > The more we talk the more I'm convinced that this is not a good api. > Say in the future we indeed have these shadow + normal .data > then just use the same insn->imm field to refer to shadow part. > Even if there are N such regions. The value_size is known. > So use 0<=imm<value_size to refer to 'index' 0 and > value_size<=imm<value_size*2 to refer to 'index' 1. > There is absolutely no need for offset and index to be separate. > Address of a byte inside bpf array can be expressed with single integer. Hmm, fair enough, I guess it also always boils down to the same, that is, discussing such facility once the need comes up and given neither of us would have a need right now, I'll just respin on Monday morning with the index bit removed as I had it originally. Lets extend it only upon need, probably good we discussed it through. :-) Thanks, Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists