netdev - Re: [bpf-next PATCH v2 1/7] bpf: refactor sockmap sample program update for arg parsing

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <83d8af14-5cbe-e8a9-8f09-15da6bbd015c@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 11 Jan 2018 20:58:36 -0800
From:   John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, borkmann@...earbox.net,
        ast@...nel.org
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [bpf-next PATCH v2 1/7] bpf: refactor sockmap sample program
 update for arg parsing

On 01/11/2018 08:31 PM, John Fastabend wrote:
> On 01/10/2018 05:25 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> On 01/10/2018 07:39 PM, John Fastabend wrote:
>>> sockmap sample program takes arguments from cmd line but it reads them
>>> in using offsets into the array. Because we want to add more arguments
>>> in the future lets do proper argument handling.
>>>
>>> Also refactor code to pull apart sock init and ping/pong test. This
>>> allows us to add new tests in the future.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
>>> ---
>>>  samples/sockmap/sockmap_user.c |  142 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>>>  1 file changed, 103 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
>> [...]
>>>  
>>>  	/* Accept Connecrtions */
>>> @@ -149,23 +177,32 @@ static int sockmap_test_sockets(int rate, int dot)
>>>  		goto out;
>>>  	}
>>>  
>>> -	max_fd = p2;
>>> -	timeout.tv_sec = 10;
>>> -	timeout.tv_usec = 0;
>>> -
>>>  	printf("connected sockets: c1 <-> p1, c2 <-> p2\n");
>>>  	printf("cgroups binding: c1(%i) <-> s1(%i) - - - c2(%i) <-> s2(%i)\n",
>>>  		c1, s1, c2, s2);
>>> +out:
>>> +	return err;
>>
>> Maybe rather than setting err and goto out where we now just return
>> err anyway, return from those places directly.
>>
> 
> Perhaps but how about doing this in another patch. This
> patch is not changing the goto err pattern. I can send
> a follow up.

OK I take it back. I went ahead an removed the goto as you
suggested. As Martin noticed the accept err was missing and
also most of those should have been errno instead of err.

v3 in-flight.

.John