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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2224e5ac-4b9d-4ffc-bc36-27a4f0b20a65@iogearbox.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2024 14:38:09 +0100
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
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

Hi Linus,

On 12/21/24 8:23 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 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?

All makes sense, I'll look into following up on your above suggestion
once back from travel!

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

Thanks & Merry Xmas,
Daniel