netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 4/6] tools/lib/bpf: expose bpf_program__set

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: <97e058b2-08e6-c99e-48ae-09a836696ad8@huawei.com>
Date:   Fri, 31 Mar 2017 10:48:11 +0800
From:   "Wangnan (F)" <wangnan0@...wei.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/6] tools/lib/bpf: expose
 bpf_program__set_type()



On 2017/3/31 10:37, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 3/30/17 7:33 PM, Wangnan (F) wrote:
>>> +void bpf_program__set_type(struct bpf_program *prog, enum
>>> bpf_prog_type type);
>>>
>>
>> This makes libbpf.h depend on uapi/linux/bpf.h (because of enum
>> bpf_prog_type), which is not always available.
>>
>> What about defining another enum inside libbpf.h?
>
> how about just including bpf.h? or making it 'int' instead of enum?
>

Including either kernel header into libbpf.h makes a lot of trouble,
because kernel header and uapi have many other things we don't need
and may conflict with existing code.

Making it 'int' looks like a backdoor. We still need macro to define
each program type.

Thank you.