netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 1/6] HID: initial BPF implementation

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, 24 Feb 2022 12:34:00 +0100
From:   Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:     Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@...com>,
        Joe Stringer <joe@...ium.io>,
        Tero Kristo <tero.kristo@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 1/6] HID: initial BPF implementation

On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 12:08:23PM +0100, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> index 000000000000..243ac45a253f
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf_hid.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later WITH Linux-syscall-note */
> +
> +/*
> + *  HID BPF public headers
> + *
> + *  Copyright (c) 2021 Benjamin Tissoires
> + */
> +
> +#ifndef _UAPI__LINUX_BPF_HID_H__
> +#define _UAPI__LINUX_BPF_HID_H__
> +
> +#include <linux/types.h>
> +
> +#define HID_BPF_MAX_BUFFER_SIZE		16384		/* 16kb */
> +
> +struct hid_device;
> +
> +enum hid_bpf_event {
> +	HID_BPF_UNDEF = 0,
> +	HID_BPF_DEVICE_EVENT,
> +};
> +
> +/* type is HID_BPF_DEVICE_EVENT */
> +struct hid_bpf_ctx_device_event {
> +	__u8 data[HID_BPF_MAX_BUFFER_SIZE];
> +	unsigned long size;

That's not a valid type to cross the user/kernel boundry, shouldn't it
be "__u64"?  But really, isn't __u32 enough here?

thanks,

greg k-h