netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/7] bpf: Add generic attach/detach/query API for multi-progs

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: <CAADnVQLL8bQxXkGfwc4BTTkjoXx2k_dANhwa0u0kbnkVgm730A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2023 16:54:50 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, 
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, 
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>, 
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>, 
	Joe Stringer <joe@...ium.io>, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...nel.org>, 
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/7] bpf: Add generic attach/detach/query API
 for multi-progs

On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 4:06 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not really concerned about our production environment. It's pretty
> controlled and restricted and I'm pretty certain we can avoid doing
> something stupid. Probably the same for your env.
>
> I'm mostly fantasizing about upstream world where different users don't
> know about each other and start doing stupid things like F_FIRST where
> they don't really have to be first. It's that "used judiciously" part
> that I'm a bit skeptical about :-D
>
> Because even with this new ordering scheme, there still should be
> some entity to do relative ordering (systemd-style, maybe CNI?).
> And if it does the ordering, I don't really see why we need
> F_FIRST/F_LAST.

+1.
I have the same concerns as expressed during lsfmmbpf.
This first/last is a foot gun.
It puts the whole API back into a single user situation.
Without "first api" the users are forced to talk to each other
and come up with an arbitration mechanism. A daemon to control
the order or something like that.
With "first api" there is no incentive to do so.