netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/3] bpf_xdp_redirect_map: Perform map lookup in eBPF helper

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]

Date:   Wed, 12 Jun 2019 11:49:17 +0200
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/3] bpf_xdp_redirect_map: Perform map lookup in eBPF helper

Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com> writes:

> On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 17:44:00 +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> +#define XDP_REDIRECT_INVALID_MASK (XDP_ABORTED | XDP_DROP | XDP_PASS | XDP_TX)
>
> It feels a little strange to OR in values which are not bits, even if
> it happens to work today (since those are values of 0, 1, 2, 3)...

Yeah, I agree. But it also nicely expresses the extent in code.
Otherwise that would need to be in a comment, like

// we allow return codes of ABORTED/DROP/PASS/TX
#define XDP_REDIRECT_INVALID_MASK 3


Or do you have a better idea?

-Toke