From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Graf Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/6] Add eBPF hooks for cgroups Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 13:06:29 +0200 Message-ID: <20160914110629.GA12405@pox.localdomain> References: <1473696735-11269-1-git-send-email-daniel@zonque.org> <20160913115627.GA4898@salvia> <20160913172408.GC6138@salvia> <20160914044217.GA44742@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com> <20160914103038.GA910@salvia> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suug-ch.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=kRYO/EKsfcllpZXo0c+n/ppM5mFDTB6i87CQ/lHs1lQ=; b=1RLKmu4DIkQXfGpwK9B6MseKtqhFd8EcrtA7C6pdDOh5d3Og5hLlaT0IzMW827qrPj QblRYOixqIwK0sHztWcHJwQLwCNPtKBNH3W5NlmB5MnD47LJY9kANBcCUu8CG2/j9M31 FCPSFv1Hwmk0URYfk4NkDcyN70ArxAK+Bs8evvhWtUKwH1bErFgrDKvkpnyn4fHMtOkg I4ujSE9oE3kKmsnfh/sbUel+r+LX+PnVyCtatmms4HSRzFqvP6QX5aX3xJAX9n38RI3I 548NJ1JLJeWNhfHbRFl+FkRym4vrBwMwkOgEYN3OV9iKAQ9uNPqI5/HWBzvd9a2RcNKf qHHQ== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160914103038.GA910@salvia> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Pablo Neira Ayuso Cc: Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Mack , htejun-b10kYP2dOMg@public.gmane.org, daniel-FeC+5ew28dpmcu3hnIyYJQ@public.gmane.org, ast-b10kYP2dOMg@public.gmane.org, davem-fT/PcQaiUtIeIZ0/mPfg9Q@public.gmane.org, kafai-b10kYP2dOMg@public.gmane.org, fw-HFFVJYpyMKqzQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org, harald-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, sargun-GaZTRHToo+CzQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org On 09/14/16 at 12:30pm, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 09:42:19PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > [...] > > For us this cgroup+bpf is _not_ for filterting and _not_ for security. > > If your goal is monitoring, then convert these hooks not to allow to > issue a verdict on the packet, so this becomes inoquous in the same > fashion as the tracing infrastructure. Why? How is this at all offensive? We have three parties voicing interest in this work for both monitoring and security. At least two specific use cases have been described. It builds on top of existing infrastructure and nicely complements other ongoing work. Why not both?