netdev - Re: [PATCH iproute2-next] Update tc-bpf.8 man page examples

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: <c144ad3a-723d-4d02-6524-bedb0647ce93@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Apr 2019 15:06:07 -0600
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Lucas Siba <lucas.siba@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2-next] Update tc-bpf.8 man page examples

On 4/26/19 2:34 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 04/26/2019 07:40 PM, David Ahern wrote:
>> On 4/20/19 1:06 PM, Lucas Siba wrote:
>>> From: Lucas Siba @ 2019-04-20 11:40 UTC
>>> To: netdev
>>>
>>> This patch updates the tc-bpf.8 example application for changes to the
>>> struct bpf_elf_map definition. In it's current form, things compile, but
>>> the resulting object file is rejected by the verifier when attempting to
>>> load it through tc.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Lucas Siba <lucas.siba@...il.com>
>>> ---
>>>  man/man8/tc-bpf.8 | 13 ++++++++++++-
>>>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> Daniel: you agree with this change?
> 
> Yeah, looks good.
> 
>>> diff --git a/man/man8/tc-bpf.8 b/man/man8/tc-bpf.8
>>> index b2f9344f..b6cfeab9 100644
>>> --- a/man/man8/tc-bpf.8
>>> +++ b/man/man8/tc-bpf.8
>>> @@ -597,6 +597,8 @@ struct bpf_elf_map __section("maps") map_stats = {
>>>          .size_key       =       sizeof(uint32_t),
>>>          .size_value     =       sizeof(struct tuple),
>>>          .max_elem       =       BPF_MAX_MARK,
>>> +        .pinning        =       PIN_GLOBAL_NS,
>>> +        .flags          =       0,
> 
> If 0 anyway, it doesn't need to be explicitly initialized. David can
> probably fix it up while applying.
> 

Thanks, Daniel. Removed the flags initialization and applied to
iproute2-next.