netdev - Re: [Potential Spoof] [PATCH bpf-next] libbpf: split BTF presence checks into libbpf- and kernel-specific parts

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: <20200312195827.h3xxc2gesrmiv57t@kafai-mbp>
Date:   Thu, 12 Mar 2020 12:58:27 -0700
From:   Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>
CC:     <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <ast@...com>,
        <daniel@...earbox.net>, <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
        <kernel-team@...com>, Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com>
Subject: Re: [Potential Spoof] [PATCH bpf-next] libbpf: split BTF presence
 checks into libbpf- and kernel-specific parts

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 11:50:33AM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> Needs for application BTF being present differs between user-space libbpf needs and kernel
Nit. This line looks too long for commit message.

> needs. Currently, BTF is mandatory only in kernel only when BPF application is
> using STRUCT_OPS. While libbpf itself relies more heavily on presense of BTF:
>   - for BTF-defined maps;
>   - for Kconfig externs;
>   - for STRUCT_OPS as well.
> 
> Thus, checks for presence and validness of bpf_object's BPF needs to be
> performed separately, which is patch does.
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>