netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 1/3] bpf: switch BPF UAPI #define constants used from BPF program side to enums

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: <5057ca77-2780-07c5-3a7d-20d2934fc6a5@iogearbox.net>
Date:   Wed, 4 Mar 2020 17:03:11 +0100
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 1/3] bpf: switch BPF UAPI #define constants
 used from BPF program side to enums

On 3/4/20 4:50 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 7:39 AM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
>>
>> I was about to push the series out, but agree that there may be a risk for #ifndefs
>> in the BPF C code. If we want to be on safe side, #define FOO FOO would be needed.
> 
> There is really no risk.
> Let's not be paranoid about it and uglify bpf.h for no reason.

 From what I've seen it seems so, yes. I've pushed the series now. Worst case we can
always add the define FOO FOO before it's exposed.

Thanks,
Daniel