netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 00/17] Improve BPF syscall command documentation

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: <87mtw1life.fsf@toke.dk>
Date:   Thu, 18 Feb 2021 12:33:09 +0100
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Joe Stringer <joe@...ium.io>
Cc:     bpf@...r.kernel.org, Joe Stringer <joe@...ium.io>,
        linux-man@...r.kernel.org, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        mtk.manpages@...il.com, ast@...nel.org, brianvv@...gle.com,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, daniel@...que.org,
        john.fastabend@...il.com, ppenkov@...gle.com,
        Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com>, sean@...s.org,
        yhs@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 00/17] Improve BPF syscall command documentation

Joe Stringer <joe@...ium.io> writes:

> On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 5:55 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Joe Stringer <joe@...d.net.nz> writes:
>> > Given the relative success of the process around bpf-helpers(7) to
>> > encourage developers to document their user-facing changes, in this
>> > patch series I explore applying this technique to bpf(2) as well.
>> > Unfortunately, even with bpf(2) being so out-of-date, there is still a
>> > lot of content to convert over. In particular, I've identified at least
>> > the following aspects of the bpf syscall which could individually be
>> > generated from separate documentation in the header:
>> > * BPF syscall commands
>> > * BPF map types
>> > * BPF program types
>> > * BPF attachment points
>>
>> Does this also include program subtypes (AKA expected_attach_type?)
>
> I seem to have left my lawyerly "including, but not limited to..."
> language at home today ;-) . Of course, I can add that to the list.

Great, thanks! :)

-Toke