netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 16/21] tools/libbpf: add bpf

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]

Date:   Sat, 9 May 2020 22:06:45 -0700
From:   Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
CC:     Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>, <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 16/21] tools/libbpf: add bpf_iter support



On 5/9/20 5:35 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 10:59:17AM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:
>> @@ -6891,6 +6897,7 @@ static int bpf_object__collect_st_ops_relos(struct bpf_object *obj,
>>   
>>   #define BTF_TRACE_PREFIX "btf_trace_"
>>   #define BTF_LSM_PREFIX "bpf_lsm_"
>> +#define BTF_ITER_PREFIX "__bpf_iter__"
>>   #define BTF_MAX_NAME_SIZE 128
> 
> In the kernel source the prefix doesn't stand out, but on libbpf side it looks
> inconsistent. May be drop __ prefix and keep one _ in the suffix?

Currently, I have context type as
    struct bpf_iter__bpf_map
Based on the above proposal, we will have function name as
    bpf_iter_bpf_map
It is quite similar to each other. My current usage to have
     __bpf_iter__bpf_map
intends to make func name and struct type name quite different.
Or maybe
     bpf_iter__bpf_map vs. bpf_iter_bpf_map
just fine as user should not care about func name
bpf_iter_bpf_map at all?