netdev - Re: [PATCHv3 iproute2-next 0/5] iproute2: add libbpf support

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20201106094425.5cc49609@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 6 Nov 2020 09:44:25 +0100
From:   Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc:     Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Hangbin Liu <haliu@...hat.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 iproute2-next 0/5] iproute2: add libbpf support

On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 12:19:00 -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> I'll just quote myself here for your convenience.

Sorry, I missed your original email for some reason.

>   Submodule is a way that I know of to make this better for end users.
>   If there are other ways to pull this off with shared library use, I'm
>   all for it, it will save the security angle that distros are arguing
>   for. E.g., if distributions will always have the latest libbpf
>   available almost as soon as it's cut upstream *and* new iproute2
>   versions enforce the latest libbpf when they are packaged/released,
>   then this might work equivalently for end users. If Linux distros
>   would be willing to do this faithfully and promptly, I have no
>   objections whatsoever. Because all that matters is BPF end user
>   experience, as Daniel explained above.

That's basically what we already do, for both Fedora and RHEL.

Of course, it follows the distro release cycle, i.e. no version
upgrades - or very limited ones - during lifetime of a particular
release. But that would not be different if libbpf was bundled in
individual projects.

 Jiri