netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/4] xsk: add proper barriers and {READ, WRITE}

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:   Mon, 26 Aug 2019 18:34:39 +0200
From:   Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>
To:     Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@...sung.com>,
        Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com>,
        ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     magnus.karlsson@...el.com, magnus.karlsson@...il.com,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, jonathan.lemon@...il.com,
        syzbot+c82697e3043781e08802@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
        hdanton@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/4] xsk: add proper barriers and {READ,
 WRITE}_ONCE-correctness for state

On 2019-08-26 17:24, Ilya Maximets wrote:
> This changes the error code a bit.
> Previously:
>     umem exists + xs unbound    --> EINVAL
>     no umem     + xs unbound    --> EBADF
>     xs bound to different dev/q --> EINVAL
> 
> With this change:
>     umem exists + xs unbound    --> EBADF
>     no umem     + xs unbound    --> EBADF
>     xs bound to different dev/q --> EINVAL
> 
> Just a note. Not sure if this is important.
> 

Note that this is for *shared* umem, so it's very seldom used. Still,
you're right, that strictly this is an uapi break, but I'd vote for the
change still. I find it hard to see that anyone relies on EINVAL/EBADF
for shared umem bind.

Opinions? :-)


Björn