BPF comes to firewalls

Re:BPF comes to firewalls by rurban on Wednesday April 18, 2018 @05:26AM (#16865899)

So should we now forget to disable eBPF jit in our kernel's because it is insecure (spectre attacks)? And eBPF was made even more insecure, with even more superpowers. They added tables! Not in dtrace just eBPF, because linux has so much more superpowers.

Time to switch over to a proper kernel, where such things do not happen.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:BPF comes to firewalls by progval on Wednesday April 18, 2018 @06:35AM (#16866175)

BPF != eBPF

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:BPF comes to firewalls by raesene9 on Wednesday April 18, 2018 @08:02AM (#16866598)

Do you have a reference expanding on that? I was just reading up on BPF/eBPF the other day (https://lwn.net/Articles/740157/) and (https://qmonnet.github.io/whirl-offload/2016/09/01/dive-into...).

From both of those I gathered that, with reference to Linux, BPF == eBPF, with the older implementation (cBPF) being deprecated.

So as the linked article is about Linux, I thought that in this case BPF == eBPF

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:BPF comes to firewalls by rurban on Friday April 20, 2018 @12:04PM (#16885911)

And? Nobody is talking about BPF, only you. And lwn is confused about this, not me.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:BPF comes to firewalls by xtf on Wednesday April 18, 2018 @08:01AM (#16866592)

Where is the difference between BSD pf and Linux BPF implementation? eBPF aside

[ Parent | on HN ]