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]
Message-ID: <6c7da700-700d-c7f6-fe0a-c42e55e81c8a@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Jan 2021 14:25:15 +0100
From:   Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>
To:     Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
        Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com>,
        ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     magnus.karlsson@...el.com, maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com,
        kuba@...nel.org, jonathan.lemon@...il.com, maximmi@...dia.com,
        davem@...emloft.net, hawk@...nel.org, john.fastabend@...il.com,
        ciara.loftus@...el.com, weqaar.a.janjua@...el.com,
        Marek Majtyka <alardam@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 5/8] libbpf, xsk: select AF_XDP BPF program
 based on kernel version

On 2021-01-20 13:52, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com> writes:
> 
>> From: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>
>>
>> Add detection for kernel version, and adapt the BPF program based on
>> kernel support. This way, users will get the best possible performance
>> from the BPF program.
> 
> Please do explicit feature detection instead of relying on the kernel
> version number; some distro kernels are known to have a creative notion
> of their own version, which is not really related to the features they
> actually support (I'm sure you know which one I'm referring to ;)).
>

Right. For a *new* helper, like bpf_redirect_xsk, we rely on rejection
from the verifier to detect support. What about "bpf_redirect_map() now
supports passing return value as flags"? Any ideas how to do that in a
robust, non-version number-based scheme?


Thanks,
Björn

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ