netdev - Re: [GIT PULL] bpf for v6.13-rc4

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: <CAHk-=whmQSiZzQuUMLHf7jn5eS1=PEhpPdTNVq8LX0qBk31w0A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2024 11:23:51 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	alexei.starovoitov@...il.com, andrii@...nel.org, martin.lau@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] bpf for v6.13-rc4

On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 at 16:21, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
>
> - Fix inlining of bpf_get_smp_processor_id helper for !CONFIG_SMP
>   systems (Andrea Righi)

LOL.

However, it strikes me that this only handles the x86-64 case.

The other cases (arm64, RISC-V) may not have the pcpu_hot crash, but
they still generate silly code to load off the thread pointer. Does
that even exist (or get initialized) in UP?

End result: I think you should have done the UP case separately and
outside the CONFIG_X86_64.. And why do this only for the
"verifier_inlines_helper_call()" case rather than just do it
unconditionally?

Anyway, I obviously pulled this, but it does seem silly.

          Linus