netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: move rcu lock management out of BPF_PROG

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: <20220414113052.046ec83d@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:30:52 +0200
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     sdf@...gle.com
Cc:     Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: move rcu lock management out of
 BPF_PROG_RUN routines

On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 15:52:18 -0700 sdf@...gle.com wrote:
> I guess including cgroup-defs.h/bpf-cgroup-defs.h into bpf.h might still
> be somewhat problematic?

FWIW including -defs.h into bpf.h should be fine.  Obviously fewer
cross-header deps the better. But the main point is that we don't 
want bpf.h to be included in too many places, so opposite direction 
to what you're asking IIUC.