netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 07/12] bpftool: Extract helpers for showing link attach type

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: <CAEf4BzZqtuA_45g_87jyuAdmvid=XuLGekgBdWY8i94Pnztm7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 1 Jun 2020 15:35:41 -0700
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>
Cc:     bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-team@...udflare.com, Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 07/12] bpftool: Extract helpers for showing
 link attach type

On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 1:32 AM Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com> wrote:
>
> Code for printing link attach_type is duplicated in a couple of places, and
> likely will be duplicated for future link types as well. Create helpers to
> prevent duplication.
>
> Suggested-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>
> Signed-off-by: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>
> ---

LGTM, minor nit below.

Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>

>  tools/bpf/bpftool/link.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
>  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/link.c b/tools/bpf/bpftool/link.c
> index 670a561dc31b..1ff416eff3d7 100644
> --- a/tools/bpf/bpftool/link.c
> +++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/link.c
> @@ -62,6 +62,15 @@ show_link_header_json(struct bpf_link_info *info, json_writer_t *wtr)
>         jsonw_uint_field(json_wtr, "prog_id", info->prog_id);
>  }
>
> +static void show_link_attach_type_json(__u32 attach_type, json_writer_t *wtr)

nit: if you look at jsonw_uint_field/jsonw_string_field, they accept
json_write_t as a first argument, because they are sort of working on
"object" json_writer_t. I think that's good and consistent. No big
deal, but if you can adjust it for consistency, it would be good.

> +{
> +       if (attach_type < ARRAY_SIZE(attach_type_name))
> +               jsonw_string_field(wtr, "attach_type",
> +                                  attach_type_name[attach_type]);
> +       else
> +               jsonw_uint_field(wtr, "attach_type", attach_type);
> +}
> +

[...]