From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E1A5C49ED7 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:19:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DE052089F for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:19:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388348AbfIMMTk convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Sep 2019 08:19:40 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:42628 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2388309AbfIMMT3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Sep 2019 08:19:29 -0400 Received: from mail-ed1-f70.google.com (mail-ed1-f70.google.com [209.85.208.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FB2A79704 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:19:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ed1-f70.google.com with SMTP id j8so17037278edl.11 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 05:19:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FUyOcPi0NHmHBGgNXqP+P7obEs5/r8uMUZC4jE6n+fs=; b=bwVLVLMGjgCNi37HpJEbst440RRi7wZKVshHXROaM6vQggaiwZZQzLDnsLFk7QKC70 lfLoa9TzJr22QxYQVLDzwb9yuBR16a7I0l5BPsdrHx6oWNlKJ6Hw4ygEdv8GxUMNOY9q 2tLiSVnpfWNQVrXYoBvgwBUJfHxCiHAR87+hK/lpLMncpR6Yt0mIZo4MhQuHu7UInoaM EWtFsab4pWXiR8shpJqLAO9nmz/6fCzcBtoLoJxM3+rRBSDvkMGp7m7oRjzaFCpE/qUY XJLQyZZxuEJRsg1sFm7h00bxBVQKBLyDVR6rmij6tQTxFGrpSJB1yGeMSf0IjkgTcGam reIQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWreVZCv3oMn0JXmJlrS536DPkrR0d1FzoLhmHE5OnihJ2A/xIp geVZ68Ft7r29ZyRbsImBJtrayXIsEICKHoqISNbn2F7W4Va9Mgzl63lTArQGAy3t8tiXJU8m6WF DwTOaPGGFzr+bbOFq X-Received: by 2002:a50:f30c:: with SMTP id p12mr46858205edm.299.1568377168003; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 05:19:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyyJlvDFyQWbdgNap7j6wIzmKQY/VrKSgEVURx/1Gzi41LI0cvKYDz9tVgKPwUjHeIr/5xDNA== X-Received: by 2002:a50:f30c:: with SMTP id p12mr46858177edm.299.1568377167788; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 05:19:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alrua-x1.borgediget.toke.dk (borgediget.toke.dk. [85.204.121.218]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p11sm5241842edh.77.2019.09.13.05.19.26 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 13 Sep 2019 05:19:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by alrua-x1.borgediget.toke.dk (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 68597180613; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:19:26 +0200 (CEST) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= To: Sami Tolvanen Cc: =?utf-8?B?QmrDtnJuIFTDtnBlbA==?= , Yonghong Song , Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Kees Cook , Martin Lau , Song Liu , "netdev\@vger.kernel.org" , "bpf\@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" , Jesper Dangaard Brouer Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: validate bpf_func when BPF_JIT is enabled In-Reply-To: References: <20190909223236.157099-1-samitolvanen@google.com> <4f4136f5-db54-f541-2843-ccb35be25ab4@fb.com> <20190910172253.GA164966@google.com> <87impzt4pu.fsf@toke.dk> <87sgp1ssfk.fsf@toke.dk> X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:19:26 +0200 Message-ID: <87h85gs81d.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org Sami Tolvanen writes: > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 3:52 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: >> I think it would be good if you do both. I'm a bit worried that XDP >> performance will end up in a "death by a thousand paper cuts" situation, >> so I'd rather push back on even relatively small overheads like this; so >> being able to turn it off in the config would be good. > > OK, thanks for the feedback. In that case, I think it's probably > better to wait until we have CFI ready for upstreaming and use the > same config for this one. SGTM, thanks! >> Can you share more details about what the "future CFI checking" is >> likely to look like? > > Sure, I posted an overview of CFI and what we're doing in Pixel devices here: > > https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2018/10/control-flow-integrity-in-android-kernel.html Great, thank you. -Toke