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: <a88d1a54-59e5-e0ca-8a9e-d212dbfc3dc6@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 Nov 2021 11:46:35 +0800
From:   Hou Tao <houtao1@...wei.com>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
CC:     Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        "Andrii Nakryiko" <andrii@...nel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/2] bpf: clean-up bpf_verifier_vlog() for
 BPF_LOG_KERNEL log level

Hi,

On 11/2/2021 6:01 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 10/29/21 3:53 PM, Hou Tao wrote:
>> An extra newline will output for bpf_log() with BPF_LOG_KERNEL level
>> as shown below:
>>
>> [   52.095704] BPF:The function test_3 has 12 arguments. Too many.
>> [   52.095704]
>> [   52.096896] Error in parsing func ptr test_3 in struct bpf_dummy_ops
>>
>>       if (log->level == BPF_LOG_KERNEL) {
>> -        pr_err("BPF:%s\n", log->kbuf);
>> +        bool newline = n > 0 && log->kbuf[n - 1] == '\n';
>> +
>> +        pr_err("BPF:%s%s", log->kbuf, newline ? "" : "\n");
>
> nit: Given you change this anyway, is there a reason not to go with "BPF:
> %s%s" instead?
>
My bad, and will do it in v3.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ