netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/3] tools/bpf: move libbpf pr

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: <20190201232938.GC5593@kernel.org>
Date:   Sat, 2 Feb 2019 00:29:38 +0100
From:   Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To:     Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Cc:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
        Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/3] tools/bpf: move libbpf pr_* debug print
 functions to headers

Em Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 11:20:44PM +0000, Yonghong Song escreveu:
> On 2/1/19 3:10 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 09:47:31AM -0800, Yonghong Song escreveu:
> >> @@ -698,13 +695,13 @@ struct btf_ext *btf_ext__new(__u8 *data, __u32 size, btf_print_fn_t err_log)
> >>   	if (!btf_ext)
> >>   		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> >>   
> >> -	err = btf_ext_copy_func_info(btf_ext, data, size, err_log);
> >> +	err = btf_ext_copy_func_info(btf_ext, data, size);
> >>   	if (err) {
> >>   		btf_ext__free(btf_ext);
> > 
> > One thing I noticed whas that the class + __ + method is not being
> > consistently followed, will this be dealt with in a followup patch, i.e.
> > to make this consistently use the format used in the
> > btf_ext__free(btf_ext) case?
> 
> Currently, the API functions have both +_+ and +__+ method names.
> The +_+ is for APIs having a close one-to-one mapping
> to system calls. The +__+ is for APIs a little bit high level.
> Did you find any particular method whose format is not quite right?

Nope, and thanks for the clarification, if I find something else I'll
get in touch,

- Arnaldo