netdev - Re: [RFC][PATCH bpf-next] libbpf: add bpf_object__open

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: <87imp7tz46.fsf@toke.dk>
Date:   Wed, 02 Oct 2019 08:55:53 +0200
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc:     Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
        Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH bpf-next] libbpf: add bpf_object__open_{file,mem} w/ sized opts

Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> writes:

>> Sure, LGTM! Should we still keep the bit where it expands _opts in the
>> struct name as part of the macro, or does that become too obtuse?
>
> For me it's a question of code navigation. When I'll have a code
>
> LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_object_open, <whatever>);
>
> I'll want to jump to the definition of "bpf_object_open" (e.g., w/
> cscope)... and will find nothing, because it's actually
> bpf_object_open_opts. So I prefer user to spell it out exactly and in
> full, this is more maintainable in the long run, IMO.

That's a good point; we shouldn't break cscope!

BTW, speaking of cscope, how about having a 'make cscope' target for
libbpf to generate the definition file? :)

-Toke