netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf, x86: Factor common x86 JIT code

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:   Mon, 29 Jun 2020 10:48:23 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Tobias Klauser <tklauser@...tanz.ch>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Wang YanQing <udknight@...il.com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf, x86: Factor common x86 JIT code

On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 2:33 AM Tobias Klauser <tklauser@...tanz.ch> wrote:
>
> Factor out code common for 32-bit and 64-bit x86 BPF JITs to bpf_jit.h
>
> Also follow other architectures and rename bpf_jit_comp.c to
> bpf_jit_comp64.c to be more explicit.
>
> Also adjust the file matching pattern in MAINTAINERS such that the
> common x86 files are included for both the 32-bit and 64-bit BPF JIT
> sections.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tobias Klauser <tklauser@...tanz.ch>
> ---
>  MAINTAINERS                                   |   3 +-
>  arch/x86/net/Makefile                         |   2 +-
>  arch/x86/net/bpf_jit.h                        |  93 ++++++++++++
>  arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c                 | 135 ++++--------------
>  .../net/{bpf_jit_comp.c => bpf_jit_comp64.c}  |  84 +----------
>  5 files changed, 123 insertions(+), 194 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 arch/x86/net/bpf_jit.h
>  rename arch/x86/net/{bpf_jit_comp.c => bpf_jit_comp64.c} (96%)

I don't see any value in such refactoring.
Looks like code churn to me.