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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1cc40302-f006-31a7-b270-30813b8f4b67@iogearbox.net> Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 23:49:43 +0200 From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>, Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de> Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...nel.org>, netfilter-devel <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH nf-next] netfilter: nf_tables: add ebpf expression On 8/31/22 7:26 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 8:53 AM Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de> wrote: >> Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote: >>>> 1 and 2 have the upside that its easy to handle a 'file not found' >>>> error. >>> >>> I'm strongly against calling into bpf from the inner guts of nft. >>> Nack to all options discussed in this thread. >>> None of them make any sense. >> >> -v please. I can just rework userspace to allow going via xt_bpf >> but its brain damaged. > > Right. xt_bpf was a dead end from the start. > It's time to deprecate it and remove it. > >> This helps gradually moving towards move epbf for those that >> still heavily rely on the classic forwarding path. > > No one is using it. > If it was, we would have seen at least one bug report over > all these years. We've seen none. > > tbh we had a fair share of wrong design decisions that look > very reasonable early on and turned out to be useless with > zero users. > BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_ACT and BPF_PROG_TYPE_LWT* > are in this category. > All this code does is bit rot. +1 > As a minimum we shouldn't step on the same rakes. > xt_ebpf would be the same dead code as xt_bpf. +1, and on top, the user experience will just be horrible. :( >> If you are open to BPF_PROG_TYPE_NETFILTER I can go that route >> as well, raw bpf program attachment via NF_HOOK and the bpf dispatcher, >> but it will take significantly longer to get there. >> >> It involves reviving >> https://lore.kernel.org/netfilter-devel/20211014121046.29329-1-fw@strlen.de/ > > I missed it earlier. What is the end goal ? > Optimize nft run-time with on the fly generation of bpf byte code ? Or rather to provide a pendant to nft given existence of xt_bpf, and the latter will be removed at some point? (If so, can't we just deprecate the old xt_bpf?) Thanks, Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists