netdev - Re: [bpf-next PATCH v5 1/5] bpf, sk_msg: add some generic helpers that may be useful from sk

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]

Date:   Tue, 26 May 2020 13:51:01 -0700
From:   John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [bpf-next PATCH v5 1/5] bpf, sk_msg: add some generic helpers
 that may be useful from sk_msg

Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 3:57 PM John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > > On 5/24/20 6:50 PM, John Fastabend wrote:
> > > > Add these generic helpers that may be useful to use from sk_msg programs.
> > > > The helpers do not depend on ctx so we can simply add them here,
> > > >
> > > >   BPF_FUNC_perf_event_output
> > > >   BPF_FUNC_get_current_uid_gid
> > > >   BPF_FUNC_get_current_pid_tgid
> > > >   BPF_FUNC_get_current_comm
> > >
> > > Hmm, added helpers below are what you list here except get_current_comm.
> > > Was this forgotten to be added here?
> >
> > Forgot to update commit messages. I dropped it because it wasn't clear to
> > me it was very useful or how I would use it from this context. I figure we
> > can add it later if its needed.
> 
> But it's also not harmful in any way and is in a similar group as
> get_current_pid_tgid. So let's add it sooner rather than later. There
> is no cost in allowing this, right?
> 

It shouldn't cost anything only thing is I have code that runs the other
three that has been deployed, at least into a dev environment, so I know
its useful and works.

How about we push it as a follow up? I can add it and do some cleanups
on the CHECK_FAILs tonight.

Thanks,
John