netdev - Re: [PATCHv3 iproute2-next 3/5] lib: add libbpf support

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20201105075121.GV2408@dhcp-12-153.nay.redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 Nov 2020 15:51:21 +0800
From:   Hangbin Liu <haliu@...hat.com>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 iproute2-next 3/5] lib: add libbpf support

On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 07:33:40PM -0700, David Ahern wrote:
> On 11/4/20 1:22 AM, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> > If we move this #ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF to bpf_legacy.c, we need to rename
> > them all. With current patch, we limit all the legacy functions in bpf_legacy
> > and doesn't mix them with libbpf.h. What do you think?
> 
> Let's rename conflicts with a prefix -- like legacy. In fact, those
> iproute2_ functions names could use the legacy_ prefix as well.
> 

Sorry, when trying to rename the functions. I just found another issue.
Even we fix the conflicts right now. What if libbpf add new functions
and we got another conflict in future? There are too much bpf functions
in bpf_legacy.c which would have more risks for naming conflicts..

With bpf_libbpf.c, there are less functions and has less risk for naming
conflicts. So I think it maybe better to not include libbpf.h in bpf_legacy.c.
What do you think?

Thanks
Hangbin