netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/2] bpf: allocate extra memory for setsockopt hook buffer

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAADnVQJN7RLmaMfdhDoJ6x5wgR8Kt3PfyH4nj_6L85jORJF_pw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Aug 2019 14:29:04 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>
Cc:     Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/2] bpf: allocate extra memory for setsockopt
 hook buffer

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 2:11 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me> wrote:
>
> On 08/01, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 02:51:09PM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > Current setsockopt hook is limited to the size of the buffer that
> > > user had supplied. Since we always allocate memory and copy the value
> > > into kernel space, allocate just a little bit more in case BPF
> > > program needs to override input data with a larger value.
> > >
> > > The canonical example is TCP_CONGESTION socket option where
> > > input buffer is a string and if user calls it with a short string,
> > > BPF program has no way of extending it.
> > >
> > > The tests are extended with TCP_CONGESTION use case.
> >
> > Applied, Thanks
> >
> > Please consider integrating test_sockopt* into test_progs.
> Sure, will take a look. I think I didn't do it initially
> because these tests create/move to cgroups and test_progs
> do simple tests with BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN.

I think it would be great to consolidate all tests under test_progs.
Since testing currently is all manual, myself and Daniel cannot realistically
run all of them for every patch.
When it's all part of test_progs it makes testing easier.
Especially test_progs can now run individual test or subtest.