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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
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?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists