netdev - Re: [bpf-next PATCH v2 15/18] bpf: sockmap sample support for bpf_msg_cork

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:   Thu, 15 Mar 2018 13:15:57 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
        davejwatson@...com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [bpf-next PATCH v2 15/18] bpf: sockmap sample support for
 bpf_msg_cork_bytes()

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 12:24:21PM -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
> Add sample application support for the bpf_msg_cork_bytes helper. This
> lets the user specify how many bytes each verdict should apply to.
> 
> Similar to apply_bytes() tests these can be run as a stand-alone test
> when used without other options or inline with other tests by using
> the txmsg_cork option along with any of the basic tests txmsg,
> txmsg_redir, txmsg_drop.
> 
> Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
> ---
>  include/uapi/linux/bpf_common.h           |    7 ++--
>  samples/sockmap/sockmap_kern.c            |   53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>  samples/sockmap/sockmap_user.c            |   19 ++++++++++
>  tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h            |    3 +-
>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_helpers.h |    2 +
>  5 files changed, 71 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf_common.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf_common.h
> index ee97668..18be907 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf_common.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf_common.h
> @@ -15,10 +15,9 @@
>  
>  /* ld/ldx fields */
>  #define BPF_SIZE(code)  ((code) & 0x18)
> -#define		BPF_W		0x00 /* 32-bit */
> -#define		BPF_H		0x08 /* 16-bit */
> -#define		BPF_B		0x10 /*  8-bit */
> -/* eBPF		BPF_DW		0x18    64-bit */
> +#define		BPF_W		0x00
> +#define		BPF_H		0x08
> +#define		BPF_B		0x10

this hunk seems wrong here. Botched rebase?