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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2019 12:52:28 -0800 From: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com> To: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Quentin Monnet <quentin.monnet@...ronome.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf 1/2] bpftool: support queues and stacks in update command On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 11:43 AM Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 3 Jan 2019 10:33:05 -0800, Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > > Bpftool expects both key and value for 'update' operations. For some > > map types, key should not be specified. Support updating those map types. > > > > Before: > > bpftool map create /sys/fs/bpf/q type queue value 4 entries 10 name q > > bpftool map update pinned /sys/fs/bpf/q value 0 1 2 3 > > Error: did not find key > > > > After: > > bpftool map create /sys/fs/bpf/q type queue value 4 entries 10 name q > > bpftool map update pinned /sys/fs/bpf/q value 0 1 2 3 > > > > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com> > > I guess it doesn't hurt to fix update/lookup, but I'd prefer to see new > separate subcommands to be honest :( > > bpftool map push/pop/peek > > Could you add those as well? I think most users will be more familiar > with the helpers than the fact that the syscall reuses the old commands. Sure, I thought about that, but decided to mirror syscall interface initially. I can do both: support update/lookup and add new commands. > > > diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/map.c b/tools/bpf/bpftool/map.c > > index 2037e3dc864b..30b92715248d 100644 > > --- a/tools/bpf/bpftool/map.c > > +++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/map.c > > @@ -781,11 +781,11 @@ static int do_dump(int argc, char **argv) > > > > static int do_update(int argc, char **argv) > > { > > + void *key = NULL, *value = NULL; > > nit: it seems tiny bit more readable to init these in the place you'd > otherwise set key to malloc (in an else clause) Ack, will do. > > > struct bpf_map_info info = {}; > > __u32 len = sizeof(info); > > __u32 *value_fd = NULL; > > __u32 flags = BPF_ANY; > > - void *key, *value; > > int fd, err; > > > > if (argc < 2) > > @@ -795,9 +795,16 @@ static int do_update(int argc, char **argv) > > if (fd < 0) > > return -1; > > > > - key = malloc(info.key_size); > > + if (info.key_size) { > > + key = malloc(info.key_size); > > + if (!key) { > > + p_err("mem alloc failed"); > > + err = -1; > > + goto exit_free; > > + } > > + } > > value = alloc_value(&info); > > Would you mind taking care of the value as well? So we are ready if > sets are ever added? Sure, makes sense. > > > - if (!key || !value) { > > + if (!value) { > > p_err("mem alloc failed"); > > err = -1; > > goto exit_free; > > I'd consider this -next material TBH, but not strongly. My initial thought that these two can go into bpf as 'fixes' because they technically don't add any new features. But I'm fine with -next as well, I'll prepare a v2 for bpf-next with those two changes plus push/pop/peek. Thank you for a review!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists