[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200214185027.nx6enxvmghucai2d@localhost>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 13:50:27 -0500
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Sebastian Sewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 07/19] bpf: Provide BPF_PROG_RUN_PIN_ON_CPU() macro
On 14-Feb-2020 02:39:24 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
[...]
> +#define BPF_PROG_RUN_PIN_ON_CPU(prog, ctx) ({ \
> + u32 ret; \
> + migrate_disable(); \
> + ret = __BPF_PROG_RUN(prog, ctx, bpf_dispatcher_nopfunc); \
> + migrate_enable(); \
> + ret; })
Does it really have to be a statement expression with a local variable ?
If so, we should consider renaming "ret" to "__ret" to minimize the
chances of a caller issuing BPF_PROG_RUN_PIN_ON_CPU with "ret" as
prog or ctx argument, which would lead to unexpected results.
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists