netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v7 0/7] libbpf: Implement BTFGen

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, 17 Feb 2022 14:12:55 -0800
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     Mauricio Vásquez Bernal <mauricio@...volk.io>
Cc:     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>,
        Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com>,
        Rafael David Tinoco <rafaeldtinoco@...il.com>,
        Lorenzo Fontana <lorenzo.fontana@...stic.co>,
        Leonardo Di Donato <leonardo.didonato@...stic.co>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v7 0/7] libbpf: Implement BTFGen

On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 2:07 PM Mauricio Vásquez Bernal
<mauricio@...volk.io> wrote:
>
> >
> > Fixed up few things I pointed out in respective patches. Applied to
> > bpf-next. Great work, congrats!
>
> Thanks a lot for all your patience and helpful reviews!
>
> >
> > It would be great as a next step to add this as (probably optional at
> > first) step for libbpf-tools in BCC repo, so that those CO-RE-based
> > tools can be used much more widely than today.
>
> I like this idea. It'll also help us to understand and improve the way
> to ship those files within the application.
>
> > How much work that
> > would be, do you think?
>
> Probably the most difficult part is to embed the generated files into
> the executable. I think generating a header file with the BTF info for
> each tool and some helpers to extract it at runtime according to the
> kernel version should work.

It probably would be one header file reused by all tools and then a
set of helpers to fetch those BTFs based on host distro/kernel combo.

>
> > And how slow would it be to download all those
> > BTFs and run min_core_btf on all of them?
>
> The whole thing takes like 5 minutes on my system (AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
> with 60mbps connection), given that almost 3 minutes are spent
> downloading the files I'd say that with a fast connection and some
> performance improvements (multicore?) it could take around 2~3
> minutes.
>
> Let me think better about this integration and will be back with some ideas.

Sounds good, thanks!