On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:16 PM Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 04:10:36PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > > > 4. Then for size check change, again, it's really much simpler and > > > > cleaner just to have a special case in check in bpf_map_meta_equal for > > > > cases where map size matters. > > > It may be simpler but not necessary less fragile for future map type. > > > > > > I am OK for removing patch 1 and just check for a specific > > > type in patch 2 but I think it is fragile for future map > > > type IMO. > > > > Well, if we think that the good default needs to be to check size, > > then similar to above, explicitly list stuff that *does not* follow > > the default, i.e., maps that don't want max_elements verification. My > > point still stands. > > I think consoldating map properties in bpf_types.h is much cleaner > and less error prone. Consolidation is good, but then we hopefully do it for all aspects of maps that currently have ad-hoc checks spread across a lot of places. Just looking at map_lookup_elem in syscall.c makes me wanna cry, for example :) I'll reply on another thread where Daniel proposed putting everything into ops, I like that better. > I'd only like to tweak the macro in patch 1 to avoid explicit ", 0)". > Can BPF_MAP_TYPE() macro stay as-is and additional macro introduced > for maps with properties ? BPF_MAP_TYPE_FL() ? > Or do some macro magic that the same macro can be used with 2 and 3 args?
