netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2] bpftool: enable libbpf's strict mode by default

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]

Date:   Thu, 11 Nov 2021 13:38:37 -0800
From:   Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
To:     Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com>
Cc:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2] bpftool: enable libbpf's strict mode by default

On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 1:07 PM Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 at 18:19, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 11:23 AM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Otherwise, attaching with bpftool doesn't work with strict section names.
> > >
> > > Also:
> > >
> > > - add --legacy option to switch back to pre-1.0 behavior
> > > - print a warning when program fails to load in strict mode to point
> > >   to --legacy flag
> > > - by default, don't append / to the section name; in strict
> > >   mode it's relevant only for a small subset of prog types
> > >
> >
> > LGTM. I'll wait for Quenting's ack before applying. Thanks!
>
> Looks good as well, thanks Stanislav!
>
> Reviewed-by: Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com>
>
> I wonder if we should display some indication ("libbpf_strict"?) in
> the output of "bpftool version", alongside "libbfd" and "skeleton"?
> It's not strictly a feature (and would always be present for newer
> versions), but it could help to check how a bpftool binary will
> behave? (I don't mind taking it as a follow-up.)

Sure, makes sense, I can follow up on that.