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:   Mon, 07 Sep 2020 10:49:00 +0200
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <>
Cc:     Stanislav Fomichev <>,
        Networking <>, bpf <>,
        "David S. Miller" <>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <>,
        Daniel Borkmann <>,
        YiFei Zhu <>,
        YiFei Zhu <>,
        Andrey Ignatov <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 3/8] libbpf: Add BPF_PROG_BIND_MAP syscall
 and use it on .metadata section

Andrii Nakryiko <> writes:

>> May be we should talk about problem statement and goals.
>> Do we actually need metadata per program or metadata per single .o
>> or metadata per final .o with multiple .o linked together?
>> What is this metadata?
> Yep, that's a very valid question. I've also CC'ed Andrey.

For the libxdp use case, I need metadata per program. But I'm already
sticking that in a single section and disambiguating by struct name
(just prefixing the function name with a _ ), so I think it's fine to
have this kind of "concatenated metadata" per elf file and parse out the
per-program information from that. This is similar to the BTF-encoded
"metadata" we can do today.

>> If it's just unreferenced by program read only data then no special names or
>> prefixes are needed. We can introduce BPF_PROG_BIND_MAP to bind any map to any
>> program and it would be up to tooling to decide the meaning of the data in the
>> map. For example, bpftool can choose to print all variables from all read only
>> maps that match "bpf_metadata_" prefix, but it will be bpftool convention only
>> and not hard coded in libbpf.
> Agree as well. It feels a bit odd for libbpf to handle ".metadata"
> specially, given libbpf itself doesn't care about its contents at all.
> So thanks for bringing this up, I think this is an important
> discussion to have.

I'm fine with having this be part of .rodata. One drawback, though, is
that if any metadata is defined, it becomes a bit more complicated to
use bpf_map__set_initial_value() because that now also has to include
the metadata. Any way we can improve upon that?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists