lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Sun, 9 Mar 2014 12:20:37 -0700
From:	Alexei Starovoitov <>
To:	Eric Dumazet <>
Cc:	"David S. Miller" <>,
	Daniel Borkmann <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>, Will Drewry <>,
	Steven Rostedt <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <>,
	Hagen Paul Pfeifer <>,
	Jesse Gross <>,
	Thomas Gleixner <>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <>,
	Tom Zanussi <>,
	Jovi Zhangwei <>,
	Eric Dumazet <>,
	Linus Torvalds <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <>,
	Pekka Enberg <>,
	Arjan van de Ven <>,
	Christoph Hellwig <>,
	LKML <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 net-next 1/3] filter: add Extended BPF interpreter and converter

On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Eric Dumazet <> wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-03-09 at 11:57 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> In sk_run_filter_ext() I used "u64 stack[64];", but "u64 stack[60];" is
>> safe too, but I didn't want to go into extensive explanation
>> of 'magic' 60 number in the first patch, so I just rounded it to 64.
>> Since now you understand, I can make it stack[60] now :)
> My point was : You should not use 64 or 60 in the C code.
> I should not have to ask you why it is safe.
> It should be obvious just reading the source code. And so far it is not.
> Thats why we use macros and comments at the macro definition.

Agree. Will fix and send V8 for these issues and sk_get_filter()
caught by Daniel.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists