CVE-2023-2163: How we found and fixed an eBPF Linux Kernel Vulnerability

Re:CVE-2023-2163: How we found and fixed an eBPF Linux Kerne... by katzinsky on Thursday August 08, 2024 @09:35AM (#41191325)

I'm not sure "Google engineers use it" is a very good counter argument. They have a very high tolerance for complexity and like most large corporations what actually gets built and used tends to be driven more by internal politics than technical merit.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:CVE-2023-2163: How we found and fixed an eBPF Linux Kerne... by eggnet on Thursday August 08, 2024 @09:41AM (#41191387)

Google would maintain a kernel patch or upstream a patch if that was the right choice for a given problem.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:CVE-2023-2163: How we found and fixed an eBPF Linux Kerne... by katzinsky on Thursday August 08, 2024 @10:07AM (#41191698)

That's really begging the question. I don't believe they would as they have consistently over engineered solutions in the past.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:CVE-2023-2163: How we found and fixed an eBPF Linux Kerne... by DaiPlusPlus on Thursday August 08, 2024 @07:24PM (#41197458)

> Google would maintain a kernel patch

I look forward to seeing that patch on Google Graveyard in a couple years' time.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:CVE-2023-2163: How we found and fixed an eBPF Linux Kerne... by knorker on Thursday August 08, 2024 @10:35AM (#41192003)

I don't mean it as a counter argument, or I don't think the way you mean it, at least.

You may not use it at your smaller scale. But there are millions of machines out there that do use it, and the alternative for the same functionality is much worse.

I bet you never use SCTP sockets either. eBPF is used much more than SCTP.

And its users "fund" its development, so it's not a burden to those who don't use it.

But are you sure your systems don't use it? Run "bpftool prog" to see. Whatever you see there someone thought was better than the alternative.

[ Parent | on HN ]