linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 bpf-next 7/9] libbpf: add libbpf support to batch ops

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: <CAEf4BzYR2cNC_O6c8Fu4HtAny-XJaGafpDCMGhuj4-ubQ14vRw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Jan 2020 12:20:52 -0800
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     Brian Vazquez <brianvv@...gle.com>
Cc:     Brian Vazquez <brianvv.kernel@...il.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        Petar Penkov <ppenkov@...gle.com>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 bpf-next 7/9] libbpf: add libbpf support to batch ops

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 10:43 AM Brian Vazquez <brianvv@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> From: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
>
> Added four libbpf API functions to support map batch operations:
>   . int bpf_map_delete_batch( ... )
>   . int bpf_map_lookup_batch( ... )
>   . int bpf_map_lookup_and_delete_batch( ... )
>   . int bpf_map_update_batch( ... )
>
> Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
> ---
>  tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c      | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h      | 22 +++++++++++++++
>  tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map |  4 +++
>  3 files changed, 84 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
> index 500afe478e94a..317727d612149 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
> @@ -452,6 +452,64 @@ int bpf_map_freeze(int fd)
>         return sys_bpf(BPF_MAP_FREEZE, &attr, sizeof(attr));
>  }
>
> +static int bpf_map_batch_common(int cmd, int fd, void  *in_batch,
> +                               void *out_batch, void *keys, void *values,
> +                               __u32 *count,
> +                               const struct bpf_map_batch_opts *opts)
> +{
> +       union bpf_attr attr = {};


this is not a big issue and I don't want to delay landing your
patches, so maybe you can follow up with another patch. But this '=
{}' part is a complete waste because you do memset below.

> +       int ret;
> +
> +       if (!OPTS_VALID(opts, bpf_map_batch_opts))
> +               return -EINVAL;
> +
> +       memset(&attr, 0, sizeof(attr));
> +       attr.batch.map_fd = fd;
> +       attr.batch.in_batch = ptr_to_u64(in_batch);
> +       attr.batch.out_batch = ptr_to_u64(out_batch);
> +       attr.batch.keys = ptr_to_u64(keys);
> +       attr.batch.values = ptr_to_u64(values);
> +       attr.batch.count = *count;
> +       attr.batch.elem_flags  = OPTS_GET(opts, elem_flags, 0);
> +       attr.batch.flags = OPTS_GET(opts, flags, 0);
> +
> +       ret = sys_bpf(cmd, &attr, sizeof(attr));
> +       *count = attr.batch.count;
> +
> +       return ret;
> +}
> +

[...]