[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABCJKufGy0aRDSUPQEOKYZ9tLjqwQDcDaTW-6im-VfjkB_gUsw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 15:01:26 -0700
From: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
To: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
Cc: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>,
Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Martin Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: validate bpf_func when BPF_JIT is enabled
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 3:52 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com> wrote:
> I think it would be good if you do both. I'm a bit worried that XDP
> performance will end up in a "death by a thousand paper cuts" situation,
> so I'd rather push back on even relatively small overheads like this; so
> being able to turn it off in the config would be good.
OK, thanks for the feedback. In that case, I think it's probably
better to wait until we have CFI ready for upstreaming and use the
same config for this one.
> Can you share more details about what the "future CFI checking" is
> likely to look like?
Sure, I posted an overview of CFI and what we're doing in Pixel devices here:
https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2018/10/control-flow-integrity-in-android-kernel.html
Sami
Powered by blists - more mailing lists