netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 0/3] fix BTF verification size resolution

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: <2618db68-7b2c-1e0c-708b-0af1e046025d@iogearbox.net>
Date:   Fri, 12 Jul 2019 17:51:17 +0200
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc:     Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        "bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 0/3] fix BTF verification size resolution

On 07/12/2019 05:42 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 5:59 AM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
>> On 07/12/2019 08:03 AM, Yonghong Song wrote:
>>> On 7/10/19 11:53 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>>>> BTF size resolution logic isn't always resolving type size correctly, leading
>>>> to erroneous map creation failures due to value size mismatch.
>>>>
>>>> This patch set:
>>>> 1. fixes the issue (patch #1);
>>>> 2. adds tests for trickier cases (patch #2);
>>>> 3. and converts few test cases utilizing BTF-defined maps, that previously
>>>>     couldn't use typedef'ed arrays due to kernel bug (patch #3).
>>>>
>>>> Patch #1 can be applied against bpf tree, but selftest ones (#2 and #3) have
>>>> to go against bpf-next for now.
>>>
>>> Why #2 and #3 have to go to bpf-next? bpf tree also accepts tests,
>>> AFAIK. Maybe leave for Daniel and Alexei to decide in this particular case.
>>
>> Yes, corresponding test cases for fixes are also accepted for bpf tree, thanks.
> 
> Thanks for merging, Daniel! My thinking was that at the time I posted
> patch set, BTF-defined map tests weren't yet merged into bpf, so I
> assumed it has to go against bpf-next.

Not yet merged given the minor change needed resulting from Yonghong's feedback.

Thanks,
Daniel