netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 2/9] libbpf: introduce concept of bpf

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]

Message-ID: <2cff901c-3b0b-d99d-3e58-7065d9d82ace@fb.com>
Date:   Fri, 28 Jun 2019 17:49:51 +0000
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
To:     Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
CC:     Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 2/9] libbpf: introduce concept of bpf_link

On 6/28/19 10:45 AM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +struct bpf_link {
>>> Maybe call it bpf_attachment? You call the bpf_program__attach_to_blah
>>> and you get an attachment?
>>
>> I wanted to keep it as short as possible, bpf_attachment is way too
>> long (it's also why as an alternative I've proposed bpf_assoc, not
>> bpf_association, but bpf_attach isn't great shortening).
> Why do you want to keep it short? We have far longer names than
> bpf_attachment in libbpf. That shouldn't be a big concern.

Naming is hard. I also prefer short.
imo the word 'link' describes the concept better than 'attachment'.