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: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 12:40:50 -0700 From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, 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>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>, Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>, Andrey Ignatov <rdna@...com>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/4] xdp: Support specifying expected existing program when attaching XDP On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 10:13:23PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > > Now for XDP. It has same flawed model. And even if it seems to you > > that it's not a big issue, and even if Jakub thinks we are trying to > > solve non-existing problem, it is a real problem and a real concern > > from people that have to support XDP in production with many > > More than happy to talk to those folks, and see the tickets. Jakub, you repeatedly demonstrated lack of understanding of what bpf_link is despite multiple attempts from me, Andrii and others. At this point I don't believe in your good intent. Your repeated attacks on BPF in every thread are out of control. I kept ignoring your insults for long time, but I cannot do this anymore. Please find other threads to contribute your opinions. They are not welcomed here. > > well-meaning developers developing BPF applications independently. > > There is one single program which can be attached to the XDP hook, > the "everybody attaches their program model" does not apply. > > TW agent should just listen on netlink notifications to see if someone > replaced its program. This is dumbest idea I've heard in a long time. May be kernel shouldn't have done ACLs and did notifications only when file is accessed by a task that shouldn't have accessed it? Same level of craziness.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists