netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpftool: Add BPF_F_QUERY_EFFECTIVE support in bpftool cgroup [show|tree]

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: <01c2c76b-5a45-aab0-e698-b5a66ab6c2e7@fb.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Jun 2019 00:40:09 +0000
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
CC:     Andrey Ignatov <rdna@...com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Takshak Chahande <ctakshak@...com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "ast@...nel.org" <ast@...nel.org>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpftool: Add BPF_F_QUERY_EFFECTIVE support in
 bpftool cgroup [show|tree]

On 6/24/19 5:30 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 00:21:57 +0000, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> On 6/24/19 5:16 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 23:38:11 +0000, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>>> I don't think this patch should be penalized.
>>>> I'd rather see we fix them all.
>>>
>>> So we are going to add this broken option just to remove it?
>>> I don't understand.
>>> I'm happy to spend the 15 minutes rewriting this if you don't
>>> want to penalize Takshak.
>>
>> hmm. I don't understand the 'broken' part.
>> The only issue I see that it could have been local vs global,
>> but they all should have been local.
> 
> I don't think all of them.  Only --mapcompat and --bpffs.  bpffs could
> be argued.  On mapcompat I must have not read the patch fully, I was
> under the impression its a global libbpf flag :(
> 
> --json, --pretty, --nomount, --debug are global because they affect
> global behaviour of bpftool.  The difference here is that we basically
> add a syscall parameter as a global option.

sure. I only disagreed about not touching older flags.
--effective should be local.
If follow up patch means 90% rewrite then revert is better.
If it's 10% fixup then it's different story.

Takshak,
could you check which way is cleaner? Revert and new patch or follow up fix?
But bpftool doesn't have a way to do local, no?
so it's kinda new feature and other flags should become local too.
hence it feels more like follow up. Just my .02