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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 26 May 2020 14:29:31 -0700
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     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

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 1:51 PM John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

Sure, no worries, works for me.

>
> Thanks,
> John

Powered by blists - more mailing lists