netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next v2 2/3] vsock/test: Introduce get

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: <hxnugz3xrrn3ze2arcvjumvjqekvjfsrvd32wi7e3zgdagdaqb@cm3y6fipqdf3>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 12:46:11 +0200
From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To: Michal Luczaj <mhal@...x.co>
Cc: virtualization@...ts.linux.dev, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next v2 2/3] vsock/test: Introduce
 get_transports()

On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 09:10:19PM +0200, Michal Luczaj wrote:
>On 6/4/25 11:07, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>> On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 10:44:42PM +0200, Michal Luczaj wrote:
>>> +static int __get_transports(void)
>>> +{
>>> +	/* Order must match transports defined in util.h.
>>> +	 * man nm: "d" The symbol is in the initialized data section.
>>> +	 */
>>> +	const char * const syms[] = {
>>> +		"d loopback_transport",
>>> +		"d virtio_transport",
>>> +		"d vhost_transport",
>>> +		"d vmci_transport",
>>> +		"d hvs_transport",
>>> +	};
>>
>> I would move this array (or a macro that define it), near the transport
>> defined in util.h, so they are near and we can easily update/review
>> changes.
>>
>> BTW what about adding static asserts to check we are aligned?
>
>Something like
>
>#define KNOWN_TRANSPORTS	\

What about KNOWN_TRANSPORTS(_) ?

>	_(LOOPBACK, "loopback")	\
>	_(VIRTIO, "virtio")	\
>	_(VHOST, "vhost")	\
>	_(VMCI, "vmci")		\
>	_(HYPERV, "hvs")
>
>enum transport {
>	TRANSPORT_COUNTER_BASE = __COUNTER__ + 1,
>	#define _(name, symbol)	\
>		TRANSPORT_##name = _BITUL(__COUNTER__ - TRANSPORT_COUNTER_BASE),
>	KNOWN_TRANSPORTS
>	TRANSPORT_NUM = __COUNTER__ - TRANSPORT_COUNTER_BASE,
>	#undef _
>};
>
>static char * const transport_ksyms[] = {
>	#define _(name, symbol) "d " symbol "_transport",
>	KNOWN_TRANSPORTS
>	#undef _
>};
>
>static_assert(ARRAY_SIZE(transport_ksyms) == TRANSPORT_NUM);
>
>?

Yep, this is even better, thanks :-)

>
>Note that I keep pushing for naming HVS a TRANSPORT_HYPERV. Perhaps it's
>better to stick to TRANSPORT_HVS after all?

I would have used HYPERV too, but honestly I don't have a strong 
opinion, so take your choice.

Thanks,
Stefano

>
>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/vsock/util.h b/tools/testing/vsock/util.h
>>> index 0afe7cbae12e5194172c639ccfbeb8b81f7c25ac..63953e32c3e18e1aa5c2addcf6f09f433660fa84 100644
>>> --- a/tools/testing/vsock/util.h
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/vsock/util.h
>>> @@ -3,8 +3,19 @@
>>> #define UTIL_H
>>>
>>> #include <sys/socket.h>
>>> +#include <linux/bitops.h>
>>> #include <linux/vm_sockets.h>
>>>
>>> +#define KALLSYMS_PATH		"/proc/kallsyms"
>>> +#define KALLSYMS_LINE_LEN	512
>>
>> We don't need to expose them in util.h IMO, we can keep in util.c
>
>OK, sure.
>
>Thanks,
>Michal
>