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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 27 May 2020 01:12:09 +0200
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc:     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 5/26/20 11:29 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> 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.

Ok, applied then, thanks!

Powered by blists - more mailing lists