netdev - Re: [PATCH] libbpf: Use sysconf to simplify libbpf_num_possible

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: <20210922032137.GA19826@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net>
Date:   Tue, 21 Sep 2021 20:21:37 -0700
From:   Muhammad Falak Wani <mwani@...ux.microsoft.com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc:     Muhammad Falak R Wani <falakreyaz@...il.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libbpf: Use sysconf to simplify libbpf_num_possible_cpus

> "This patch is a part ([0]) of libbpf-1.0 milestone.
> 
>   [0] Closes: https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf/issue/383
> 
> Please update in the next revision.
Sure, will send in a V2 of the patch.
> 
> 
> Also, keep in mind that we ask to use "[PATCH bpf-next]" prefix when
> submitting patches against the bpf-next kernel tree. It makes the
> intent clear and our BPF CI system knows which tree to test against.
> Thanks.
> 
Apologies, duly noted for subsequent patches.

> I'd say it's still a good idea for explicitness and to show that we
> didn't forget about it :) Plus, if it actually ever fails, we don't
> want to WRITE_ONCE() here, so please follow the same error handling
> logic as it was previously with parse_cpu_mask_file.
> 
> >
> >         WRITE_ONCE(cpus, tmp_cpus);
> >         return tmp_cpus;
Sure, will adhere to the coding style.

Thank you for your reivew.

-mfrw