linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 net-next 1/3] filter: add Extended BPF interpreter and converter

lists.openwall.net		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 linux-cve-announce 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]

Message-ID: <CAMEtUuw7nAv_AhCfsgo5+4nQ+s7dmu97fxzTf69Nz5pdDcqKHA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 9 Mar 2014 12:20:37 -0700
From:	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@...u.net>,
	Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jovi Zhangwei <jovi.zhangwei@...il.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@....fi>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
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 <eric.dumazet@...il.com> 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.

Thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/