netdev - Re: [PATCH 17/39] bpf: resolve_pseudo_ldimm64(): take handling of a single ldimm64 insn into helper

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: <CAEf4Bzb=yJKSByBktNXQDd8rqWPNCU9EWziqQhFBnCVuTGKCdg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 13:05:19 -0700
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, viro@...nel.org, 
	bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Linux-Fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>, 
	"open list:CONTROL GROUP (CGROUP)" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org, 
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/39] bpf: resolve_pseudo_ldimm64(): take handling of a
 single ldimm64 insn into helper

On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 8:29 PM Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 09:51:34AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>
> > The bpf changes look ok and Andrii's approach is easier to grasp.
> > It's better to route bpf conversion to CLASS(fd,..) via bpf-next,
> > so it goes through bpf CI and our other testing.
> >
> > bpf patches don't seem to depend on newly added CLASS(fd_pos, ...
> > and fderr, so pretty much independent from other patches.
>
> Representation change and switch to accessors do matter, though.
> OTOH, I can put just those into never-rebased branch (basically,
> "introduce fd_file(), convert all accessors to it" +
> "struct fd representation change" + possibly "add struct fd constructors,
> get rid of __to_fd()", for completeness sake), so you could pull it.
> Otherwise you'll get textual conflicts on all those f.file vs. fd_file(f)...

Yep, makes sense. Let's do that, we can merge that branch into
bpf-next/master and I will follow up with my changes on top of that.

Let's just drop the do_one_ldimm64() extraction, and keep fdput(f)
logic, plus add fd_file() accessor changes. I'll then add a switch to
CLASS(fd) after a bit more BPF-specific clean ups. This code is pretty
sensitive, so I'd rather have all the non-trivial refactoring done
separately. Thanks!