linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next] bpf: update perf event helper function signature and documentation

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]

Date:   Tue, 23 May 2017 03:17:31 +0000
From:   Teng Qin <qinteng@...com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:     "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "bgregg@...flix.com" <bgregg@...flix.com>,
        "daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bpf: update perf event helper function signature
 and documentation



On 5/22/17, 20:08, "David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:

    From: Teng Qin <qinteng@...com>
    Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 00:39:34 +0000
    
    > diff --git a/samples/bpf/bpf_helpers.h b/samples/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
    > index 9a9c95f..a94ce42 100644
    > --- a/samples/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
    > +++ b/samples/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
    > @@ -37,9 +37,8 @@ static int (*bpf_clone_redirect)(void *ctx, int ifindex, int flags) =
    >  	(void *) BPF_FUNC_clone_redirect;
    >  static int (*bpf_redirect)(int ifindex, int flags) =
    >  	(void *) BPF_FUNC_redirect;
    > -static int (*bpf_perf_event_output)(void *ctx, void *map,
    > -				    unsigned long long flags, void *data,
    > -				    int size) =
    > +static int (*bpf_perf_event_output)(void *ctx, void *map, u64 flags,
    > +	                            void *data, int size) =
    >  	(void *) BPF_FUNC_perf_event_output;
    >  static int (*bpf_get_stackid)(void *ctx, void *map, int flags) =
    >  	(void *) BPF_FUNC_get_stackid;
    
    I think we've been intentionally avoiding the use of "u64", "u32",
    etc. in this file.
    
    But what do I know.

Alexei said it was due to Clang not taking u64, u32 etc. for compilation.
I didn’t know the context and just used them. But apparently, something
changed and now they build and run OK......