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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAEf4BzZHjMKfzVBqOq2Zgobx9iniZV+ve1EEirxvDbRAHan6OA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 Jun 2020 10:39:46 -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 Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 2:37 AM Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 12:35 AM CEST, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I followed show_link_header_json example here. I'm guessing the
> intention was to keep show_link_header_json and show_link_header_plain
> consistent, as the former takes an extra arg (wtr).

It's fine, it's a minor point, even though this order feels backwards to me :)

>
> >
> >> +{
> >> +       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);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >
> > [...]