netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/6] libbpf: move bpf_helpers.h, 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]

Date:   Mon, 30 Sep 2019 16:27:31 -0700
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
Cc:     Song Liu <liu.song.a23@...il.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/6] libbpf: move bpf_helpers.h, bpf_endian.h
 into libbpf

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 4:23 PM Song Liu <songliubraving@...com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 30, 2019, at 3:58 PM, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 3:55 PM Song Liu <liu.song.a23@...il.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 1:43 PM Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Make bpf_helpers.h and bpf_endian.h official part of libbpf. Ensure they
> >>> are installed along the other libbpf headers.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>
> >>
> >> Can we merge/rearrange 2/6 and 3/6, so they is a git-rename instead of
> >> many +++ and ---?
> >
> > I arranged them that way because of Github sync. We don't sync
> > selftests/bpf changes to Github, and it causes more churn if commits
> > have a mix of libbpf and selftests changes.
>
> Aha, I missed this point.
>
> > I didn't modify bpf_helpers.h/bpf_endian.h between those patches, so
> > don't worry about reviewing contents ;)
>
> Well, we need to be careful here. As headers in a library should be
> more stable than headers shipped with the code.
>
> Here, I am a little concerned with the fact that we added BPF_CORE_READ()
> to libbpf, and then changed its syntax. This is within one release, so
> it is mostly OK.

Well, I could bundle bpf_helpers move and fixing up selftests in one
commit, but I think it just makes commit unnecessarily big and
convoluted. BPF_CORE_READ in previous form was ever only used by
selftests, so it was never "released" per se, so it seems fine to do
it this way, but let me know if you disagree.

>
> Thanks,
> Song
>