netdev - Re: [PATCH v5 bpf-next 00/10] bpf, tracing: introduce bpf raw tracepoints

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: <7c9262c0-d554-fa1e-294d-c07c499ed845@fb.com>
Date:   Fri, 23 Mar 2018 19:35:59 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
To:     <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:     <daniel@...earbox.net>, <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        <peterz@...radead.org>, <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <kernel-team@...com>,
        <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 bpf-next 00/10] bpf, tracing: introduce bpf raw
 tracepoints

On 3/23/18 7:30 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
>
> v4->v5:
> - adopted Daniel's fancy REPEAT macro in bpf_trace.c in patch 7

Daniel,
if you don't mind I'd like to land the patch set in this shape
and you can follow up with additional macro magic,
since I don't understand how the UNPACK part of it works.
It sort of looks unnecessary, but if remove it then (,) doesn't
get 'unpacked' into single comma.
Yet if __DL_COM is defined as , without ()
then nothing works. My brain is hurting.