netdev - Re: [RFC bpf-next 3/4] tools/bpf: bpftool, split the function do

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <57dce5da-2e7d-9a8e-a3b9-945250c71b8d@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date:   Thu, 20 Sep 2018 11:49:58 +0900
From:   Prashant Bhole <bhole_prashant_q7@....ntt.co.jp>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Quentin Monnet <quentin.monnet@...ronome.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC bpf-next 3/4] tools/bpf: bpftool, split the function
 do_dump()



On 9/20/2018 12:26 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 16:51:42 +0900, Prashant Bhole wrote:
>> +static int dump_map_elem(int fd, void *key, void *value,
>> +			 struct bpf_map_info *map_info, struct btf *btf,
>> +			 json_writer_t *btf_wtr)
>> +{
>> +	int num_elems = 0;
>> +
>> +	if (!bpf_map_lookup_elem(fd, key, value)) {
>> +		if (json_output) {
>> +			print_entry_json(map_info, key, value, btf);
>> +		} else {
>> +			if (btf) {
>> +				struct btf_dumper d = {
>> +					.btf = btf,
>> +					.jw = btf_wtr,
>> +					.is_plain_text = true,
>> +				};
>> +
>> +				do_dump_btf(&d, map_info, key, value);
>> +			} else {
>> +				print_entry_plain(map_info, key, value);
>> +			}
>> +			num_elems++;
>> +		}
>> +		goto out;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	/* lookup error handling */
>> +	if (map_is_map_of_maps(map_info->type) ||
>> +	    map_is_map_of_progs(map_info->type))
>> +		goto out;
>> +
> 
> nit: why not just return?  the goto seems to only do a return anyway,
>       is this suggested by some coding style?  Is it to help the
>       compiler?  I see people do this from time to time..

Thanks for reviewing. I agree, goto and the label isn't needed. I will 
fix it.

-Prashant
> 
> [...]
> 
>> +out:
>> +	return num_elems;
> 
>