Skip to content

Comment on eBPF Verification Is Untenableparent

Comments

to be secure against actively hostile code

Was that a requirement for the predecessor of eBPF: Custom kernel modules?

Kernel modules require root privileges to load and the Linux kernel's philosophy (pre user namespaces lollllll) was that root -> kernel privesc didn't matter.

Of course it would be nice if every app can load up its own untrusted eBPF code and for the kernel to not be compromised. But why such high standards, where else is that the standard to go for? Seems perfect is the enemy of good.

I don't think "standard" is the point. It's about unlocking new features and capabilities.

eBPF is not a replacement for the general concept of custom kernel modules.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.