netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 1/2] tools: psock_lib: tighten conditions checked in sock

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: <20170104224848.GB31756@oracle.com>
Date:   Wed, 4 Jan 2017 17:48:48 -0500
From:   Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc:     linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        willemb@...gle.com, davem@...emloft.net, shuah@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 1/2] tools: psock_lib: tighten conditions
 checked in sock_setfilter

On (01/04/17 23:26), Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> 
> >>As it stands it makes it a bit harder to parse / less readable with macros
> >>actually. Rest seems fine, thanks.

Usually macros are there (a) as an abstraction so you 
dont have to hard-code things, and, (b) to make things 
more readable. (maybe that's why the 1992 VJ paper on 
BPF came up with these macros?)

I think we differ on code-aesthetics (not correctness) here. 
It was not immediately obvious to me that "0x15 is actually 
BPF_JMP + BPF_JEQ + BPF_K" etc, when I wanted to extend
the bpf_prog to harden the checks in the existing code.

Would it be ok to leave the extremely subjective 
"make this more readable" part for you to tackle later? 
Or I can just drop patch1, and you can fix it to your 
satisfaction later.

--Sowmini