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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 4 Aug 2022 12:17:57 -0700
From:   Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
To:     Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
Cc:     bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, kernel-team@...com,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 15/15] selftests/bpf: bpf_setsockopt tests

On Thu, Aug 04, 2022 at 10:03:58AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > I am planning to refactor the bpf_getsockopt also,
> > so trying to avoid adding more dup code at this point
> > while they can directly be read from sk through PTR_TO_BTF_ID.
> >
> > btw, since we are on bpf_getsockopt(), do you still see a usage on
> > bpf_getsockopt() for those 'integer-value' optnames that can be
> > easily read from the sk pointer ?
> 
> Writing is still done via bpf_setsockopt, so having the same interface
> to read the settings seems useful?
Make sense.  It probably will have less surprise to have a
symmetrical optname expectation on set/getsockopt.  It will be
cheaper to add to bpf_getsockopt() anyway once it is cleaned up.
Asking because I just don't have new use case (adding optnames)
to bpf_getsockopt() after the bpf_skc_to_*() helpers were
introduced.

> > > > +           case SO_MARK:
> > > > +                   *optval = sk->sk_mark;
> > > > +                   break;
> > >
> > > SO_MARK should be handled by bpf_getsockopt ?
> > Good point, will remove SO_MARK case.
> >
> > Thanks for the review!

Powered by blists - more mailing lists