netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/2] libbpf: Implement BTF Generator API

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: <CAHap4zvYaj9pnmgMLa9-B+3sbypj=OA0smrsJewyP+T-rsDtWA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 4 Nov 2021 09:58:07 -0500
From:   Mauricio Vásquez Bernal <mauricio@...volk.io>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Rafael David Tinoco <rafaeldtinoco@...il.com>,
        Lorenzo Fontana <lorenzo.fontana@...stic.co>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/2] libbpf: Implement BTF Generator API

> > ```
> > /* reduced version of struct bpf_core_spec */
> > struct bpf_core_spec_pub {
> > const struct btf *btf;
> > __u32 root_type_id;
> > enum bpf_core_relo_kind kind;
> > /* raw, low-level spec: 1-to-1 with accessor spec string */ --> we can
> > also use access_str_off and let the user parse it
> > int raw_spec[BPF_CORE_SPEC_MAX_LEN];
>
> string might be a more "extensible" way, but we'll need to construct
> that string for each relocation
>
> > /* raw spec length */
> > int raw_len;
>
> using string would eliminate the need for this
>
> > };
> >
> > struct bpf_core_relo_pub {
> > const char *prog_name; --> if we expose it by program then it's not needed.
>
> yep, not sure about per-program yet, but that's minor
>
> > int insn_idx;
> >
> > bool poison; --> allows the user to understand if the relocation
> > succeeded or not.
> >
> > /* new field offset for field based core relos */
> > __u32 new_offset;
> >
> > // TODO: fields for type and enum-based relos
>
> isn't it always just u64 new_value for all types of relos? We can also
> expose old_value just for completeness
>

Oh right. We can expose new_val, orig_val and let the user interpret
their meaning based on the relo_kind.

> >
> > struct bpf_core_spec_pub local_spec, targ_spec; --> BTFGen only needs
> > targ_spec, I suppose local spec would be useful for other use cases.
>
> targ_spec doesn't seem necessary given we have root_type_id, relo
> kind, access_string (or raw_spec). What am I missing?
>

Not sure I follow. root_type, relo kind and access_string are all part
of bpf_core_spec_pub, there are two instances of this structure,
targ_spec and local_spec.