netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf 1/2] bpf: fix unconnected udp hooks

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:   Wed, 5 Jun 2019 17:13:51 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc:     Martin Lau <kafai@...com>, Andrey Ignatov <rdna@...com>,
        "bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Martynas Pumputis <m@...bda.lt>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf 1/2] bpf: fix unconnected udp hooks

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 5:09 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
>
> >>  tools/bpf/bpftool/cgroup.c     |  5 ++++-
> >>  tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h |  2 ++
> > Should the bpf.h sync to tools/ be in a separate patch?
>
> I was thinking about it, but concluded for such small change, it's not
> really worth it. If there's a strong opinion, I could do it, but I think
> that 2-liner sync patch just adds noise.

it's not about the size. It breaks the sync of libbpf.
we should really enforce user vs kernel to be separate patches.