netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next] libbpf: make LIBBPF_OPTS macro strictly a variable declaration

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:   Tue, 22 Oct 2019 09:27:04 +0200
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
        Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.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>,
        Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] libbpf: make LIBBPF_OPTS macro strictly a variable declaration

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

> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 12:01 PM Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 06:57 PM CEST, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>> > LIBBPF_OPTS is implemented as a mix of field declaration and memset
>> > + assignment. This makes it neither variable declaration nor purely
>> > statements, which is a problem, because you can't mix it with either
>> > other variable declarations nor other function statements, because C90
>> > compiler mode emits warning on mixing all that together.
>> >
>> > This patch changes LIBBPF_OPTS into a strictly declaration of variable
>> > and solves this problem, as can be seen in case of bpftool, which
>> > previously would emit compiler warning, if done this way (LIBBPF_OPTS as
>> > part of function variables declaration block).
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>
>> > ---
>>
>> Just a suggestion - macro helpers like this usually have DECLARE in
>> their name. At least in the kernel. For instance DECLARE_COMPLETION.
>
> Yes, it makes sense. This will cause some extra code churn, but it's
> not too late. Will rename in v2 and fix current usages.

While you're respinning, maybe add a comment explaining what it is
you're doing? It certainly broke the C parser in my head, so maybe a
hint would be good for others as well :)

-Toke