Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/3] bpf: add signature

Luca Boccassi
2021-12-03T22:07:01Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1610 bytes --]

On Fri, 2021-12-03 at 11:37 -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 11:36 AM Matteo Croce
> <mcroce@linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 8:22 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> > <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 11:18 AM Matteo Croce
> > > <mcroce@linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: Matteo Croce <mcroce@microsoft.com>
> > > >
> > > > This series add signature verification for BPF files.
> > > > The first patch implements the signature validation in the
> > > > kernel,
> > > > the second patch optionally makes the signature mandatory,
> > > > the third adds signature generation to bpftool.
> > >
> > > Matteo,
> > >
> > > I think I already mentioned that it's no-go as-is.
> > > We've agreed to go with John's suggestion.
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > my previous attempt was loading a whole ELF file and parsing it in
> > kernel.
> > In this series I just validate the instructions against a
> > signature,
> > as with kernel CO-RE libbpf doesn't need to mangle it.
> >
> > Which suggestion? I think I missed this one..
>
> This talk and discussion:
> https://linuxplumbersconf.org/event/11/contributions/947/

Thanks for the link - but for those of us who don't have ~5 hours to
watch a video recording, would you mind sharing a one line summary,
please? Is there an alternative patch series implementing BPF signing
that you can link us so that we can look at it? Just a link or
googlable reference would be more than enough.

Thank you!

--
Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]