netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 4/4] bpftool: Add struct

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: <8bc91294-dd7a-deb7-5006-4350bbb3b70f@isovalent.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Mar 2020 09:25:34 +0000
From:   Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com>
To:     Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
Cc:     bpf@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, kernel-team@...com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 4/4] bpftool: Add struct_ops support

2020-03-16 17:57 UTC-0700 ~ Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 05:24:52PM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:54:28AM +0000, Quentin Monnet wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> +static int do_unregister(int argc, char **argv)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	const char *search_type, *search_term;
>>>> +	struct res res;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (argc != 2)
>>>> +		usage();
>>>
>>> Or you could reuse the macros in main.h, for more consistency with other
>>> subcommands:
>>>
>>> 	if (!REQ_ARGS(2))
>>> 		return -1;
>> Thanks for the review!
>>
>> I prefer to print out "usage();" whenever possible but then "-j" gave
>> me a 'null' after a json error mesage ...
>>
>> # bpftool -j struct_ops unregister
>> {"error":"'unregister' needs at least 2 arguments, 0 found"},null
>>
>> Then I went without REQ_ARGS(2) which is similar to a few existing
>> cases like do_dump(), do_updaate()...etc in map.c.
>>
>> That was my consideration.  However, I can go back to use REQ_ARGS(2)
>> and return -1 without printing usage.  no strong preference here.
> After another look,  I will keep it as is since REQ_ARGS() is a "<"
> check.  "argc != 2" is the correct check here.  Otherwise,
> allowing 'bpftool struct_ops unregister name cubic dctcp' looks weird.
> 

Ah right, fair enough. I'm good with v2, thanks for the changes!
Quentin