On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 09:42:39 -0700
Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@xxxxxx> wrote:
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h
> index 2e83a34f8c79..1cf2cf8d80f3 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h
> @@ -47,6 +47,12 @@ do { \
> #define pr_info(fmt, ...) __pr(LIBBPF_INFO, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> #define pr_debug(fmt, ...) __pr(LIBBPF_DEBUG, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
>
> +#define OPTS_VALID(opts) (!(opts) || (opts)->sz >= sizeof((opts)->sz))
Do be aware that C sizeof() will include the padding the compiler does.
Thus, when extending a struct (e.g. in a newer version) the size
(sizeof) might not actually increase (if compiler padding room exist).
> +#define OPTS_HAS(opts, field) \
> + ((opts) && opts->sz >= offsetofend(typeof(*(opts)), field))
> +#define OPTS_GET(opts, field, fallback_value) \
> + (OPTS_HAS(opts, field) ? (opts)->field : fallback_value)
I do think, that these two "accessor" defines address the padding issue
I described above.
p.s. I appreciate that you are working on this, and generally like the idea.
--
Best regards,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer
MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
