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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:19:26 +0200 From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com> To: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.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\@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "bpf\@vger.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel\@vger.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 Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com> writes: > 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. SGTM, thanks! >> 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 Great, thank you. -Toke
Powered by blists - more mailing lists