On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> >> + struct {
> >> + __u32 abi; /* minimal ABI version, cf. user doc */
> >
> > the concept of abi (version) sounds a bit weird to me.
> > Why bother with it at all?
> > Once the first set of patches lands the kernel as whole will
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> >> + struct {
> >> + __u32 abi; /* minimal ABI version, cf. user doc */
> >
> > the concept of abi (version) sounds a bit weird to me.
> > Why bother with it at all?
> > Once the first set of patches lands the kernel as whole will
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> more general question: what is the status of security/ bits?
> I'm assuming they still need to be reviewed and explicitly acked by James,
> right?
Yep, along with other core security developers where possible.
--
James Morris
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> more general question: what is the status of security/ bits?
> I'm assuming they still need to be reviewed and explicitly acked by James,
> right?
Yep, along with other core security developers where possible.
--
James Morris
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 09:45:24AM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> >>
> >> +union bpf_prog_subtype {
> >> + struct {
> >> + __u32 abi; /* minimal ABI version, cf. user doc */
> >
> > the concept of abi (version) sounds a bit weird to me.
> > Why bother with it at all?
> >
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 09:45:24AM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> >>
> >> +union bpf_prog_subtype {
> >> + struct {
> >> + __u32 abi; /* minimal ABI version, cf. user doc */
> >
> > the concept of abi (version) sounds a bit weird to me.
> > Why bother with it at all?
> >
On 23/08/2017 04:44, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 02:09:25AM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>> The goal of the program subtype is to be able to have different static
>> fine-grained verifications for a unique program type.
>>
>> The struct bpf_verifier_ops gets a new optional
On 23/08/2017 04:44, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 02:09:25AM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>> The goal of the program subtype is to be able to have different static
>> fine-grained verifications for a unique program type.
>>
>> The struct bpf_verifier_ops gets a new optional
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 02:09:25AM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> The goal of the program subtype is to be able to have different static
> fine-grained verifications for a unique program type.
>
> The struct bpf_verifier_ops gets a new optional function:
> is_valid_subtype(). This new verifier is
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 02:09:25AM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> The goal of the program subtype is to be able to have different static
> fine-grained verifications for a unique program type.
>
> The struct bpf_verifier_ops gets a new optional function:
> is_valid_subtype(). This new verifier is
The goal of the program subtype is to be able to have different static
fine-grained verifications for a unique program type.
The struct bpf_verifier_ops gets a new optional function:
is_valid_subtype(). This new verifier is called at the beginning of the
eBPF program verification to check if the
The goal of the program subtype is to be able to have different static
fine-grained verifications for a unique program type.
The struct bpf_verifier_ops gets a new optional function:
is_valid_subtype(). This new verifier is called at the beginning of the
eBPF program verification to check if the
12 matches
Mail list logo
