netdev - Re: pull-request: bpf-next 2022-03-21

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHk-=wi0fNH+FS-ng2Nvq2p1Jbfn+-G1AsK-XY7MD4gTJZg5ZA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:59:29 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: pull-request: bpf-next 2022-03-21

On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 4:11 PM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Did you look at the code?
> In particular:
> https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/164735286243.1084943.7477055110527046644.stgit@devnote2/
>
> it's a copy paste of arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c
>
> How is it "bad architecture code" ?

It's "bad architecture code" because the architecture maintainers have
made changes to check ENDBR in the meantime.

So it used to be perfectly fine. It's not any longer - and the
architecture maintainers were clearly never actually cc'd on the
changes, so they didn't find out until much too late.

Think of it this way: what if somebody started messing with your BPF
code, never told you, and then merged the BPF changes on the basis of
"hey, I used old BPF code as a base for it". In the meantime, you'd
changed the calling convention for BPF, so that code - that used to be
ok - now no longer actually works properly.

Would you think it's ok to bypass you as a maintainer on the basis
that it was based on a copy of code you maintained, and never even cc
you on the changes?

Or would you be unhappy?

             Linus