Re: [RFC PATCH 4.10 3/6] bpf: Use SHA256 instead of SHA1 for bpf digests

2016-12-26 Thread Andy Lutomirski
On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 08:59:53PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote: >> On 12/24/2016 03:22 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> >BPF digests are intended to be used to avoid reloading programs that >> >are already

Re: [RFC PATCH 4.10 3/6] bpf: Use SHA256 instead of SHA1 for bpf digests

2016-12-26 Thread Alexei Starovoitov
On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 08:59:53PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 12/24/2016 03:22 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > >BPF digests are intended to be used to avoid reloading programs that > >are already loaded. For use cases (CRIU?) where untrusted programs > >are involved, intentional hash

Re: [RFC PATCH 4.10 3/6] bpf: Use SHA256 instead of SHA1 for bpf digests

2016-12-24 Thread Daniel Borkmann
On 12/24/2016 03:22 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: BPF digests are intended to be used to avoid reloading programs that are already loaded. For use cases (CRIU?) where untrusted programs are involved, intentional hash collisions could cause the wrong BPF program to execute. Additionally, if BPF

[RFC PATCH 4.10 3/6] bpf: Use SHA256 instead of SHA1 for bpf digests

2016-12-23 Thread Andy Lutomirski
BPF digests are intended to be used to avoid reloading programs that are already loaded. For use cases (CRIU?) where untrusted programs are involved, intentional hash collisions could cause the wrong BPF program to execute. Additionally, if BPF digests are ever used in-kernel to skip