netdev - Re: [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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f031cc95-de56-4701-7eb9-b3128b4722e5@iogearbox.net>
Date:   Fri, 13 Mar 2020 00:16:35 +0100
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, ast@...com
Cc:     andrii.nakryiko@...il.com, kernel-team@...com,
        Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] libbpf: split BTF presence checks into libbpf-
 and kernel-specific parts

On 3/12/20 7:50 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> Needs for application BTF being present differs between user-space libbpf needs and kernel
> 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.
> 
> Fixes: 5327644614a1 ("libbpf: Relax check whether BTF is mandatory")
> Reported-by: Michal Rostecki <mrostecki@...nsuse.org>
> Cc: Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com>
> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>

Applied, thanks!