netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf 0/3] Restrict bpf_probe_read{,str}() and bpf_trace

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: <cb0749ab-e37b-6fe4-5830-a40fb4fca995@iogearbox.net>
Date:   Thu, 14 May 2020 21:54:06 +0200
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     ast@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mhiramat@...nel.org,
        brendan.d.gregg@...il.com, john.fastabend@...il.com, yhs@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf 0/3] Restrict bpf_probe_read{,str}() and
 bpf_trace_printk()'s %s

On 5/14/20 6:58 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 06:16:04PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> Small set of fixes in order to restrict BPF helpers for tracing which are
>> broken on archs with overlapping address ranges as per discussion in [0].
>> I've targetted this for -bpf tree so they can be routed as fixes. Thanks!
> 
> Does that mean you are targeting them for 5.7?

Yes, it would make most sense to me based on the discussion we had in the
other thread. If there is concern wrt latency we could route these to DaveM's
net tree in a timely manner (e.g. still tonight or so).

Thanks,
Daniel