netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/5] bpftool: Make probes which emit dmesg warnings optional

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: <20200221224428.plbxav3scv6og6kv@ast-mbp>
Date:   Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:44:29 -0800
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com>
Cc:     Michal Rostecki <mrostecki@...nsuse.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/5] bpftool: Make probes which emit dmesg
 warnings optional

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 11:28:05AM +0000, Quentin Monnet wrote:
> 
> "trace" sounds too generic. If filters are applied again to prog and map
> types in the future (as you had in v1), this would catch tracepoint and
> raw_tracepoint program types and stack_trace map type. Or if new helpers
> with "trace" in their name are added, we skip them too. Can we use something
> more specific, probably "trace_printk"?

+1

> Thanks for the patch! While I understand you want to keep the changes you
> have done to use regex, I do not really think they bring much in this
> version of the patch. As we only want to filter out two specific helpers, it
> seems to me that it would be much simpler to just compare helper names
> instead of introducing regular expressions that are not used otherwise. What
> do you think?

+1
I was thinking the same.
Or filter by specific integer id of the helper.