netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next] bpftool: fix bpftool build by switching to 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 7 Oct 2019 19:50:01 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
        Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next] bpftool: fix bpftool build by switching to
 bpf_object__open_file()

On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 19:38:15 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 7:23 PM Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 19:16:45 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:  
> > > On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 7:00 PM Jakub Kicinski wrote:  
> > > > On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 15:56:04 -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:  
> > > > > diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c b/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c
> > > > > index 43fdbbfe41bb..27da96a797ab 100644
> > > > > --- a/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c
> > > > > +++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c
> > > > > @@ -1092,9 +1092,7 @@ static int do_run(int argc, char **argv)
> > > > >  static int load_with_options(int argc, char **argv, bool first_prog_only)
> > > > >  {
> > > > >       struct bpf_object_load_attr load_attr = { 0 };
> > > > > -     struct bpf_object_open_attr open_attr = {
> > > > > -             .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_UNSPEC,
> > > > > -     };
> > > > > +     enum bpf_prog_type common_prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_UNSPEC;
> > > > >       enum bpf_attach_type expected_attach_type;
> > > > >       struct map_replace *map_replace = NULL;
> > > > >       struct bpf_program *prog = NULL, *pos;  
> > > >
> > > > Please maintain reverse xmas tree..  
> > >
> > > There are exceptions. I don't think it's worth doing everywhere.  
> >
> > Rule #0 stick to the existing code style.
> >
> > "Previous line of code declaring this variable in a different way was
> > in this place" is a really weak argument and the only one which can be
> > made here...  
> 
> do you seriously think that arguing about xmas tree is a good
> spend of yours and my time?!

Hahaha I really don't, I was about to say. I'm just registering my
disgruntlement :) I can't stay silent when I see hasty submissions
that make the code of which I'm the original author deteriorate.
I hope that's understandable.