On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 09:15:35AM -0800, sdf@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On 11/13, wangkailong@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > Fix following coccicheck warning:
>
> > samples/seccomp/bpf-fancy.c:83:39-40: WARNING: Use ARRAY_SIZE
> > samples/seccomp/bpf-fancy.c:86:44-45: WARNING: Use ARRAY_SIZE
>
> Not sure this should go via bpf tree. CC'ed Kees
>
> > Signed-off-by: KaiLong Wang <wangkailong@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > samples/seccomp/bpf-fancy.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> > diff --git a/samples/seccomp/bpf-fancy.c b/samples/seccomp/bpf-fancy.c
> > index 1ccb435025b6..548f038924d6 100644
> > --- a/samples/seccomp/bpf-fancy.c
> > +++ b/samples/seccomp/bpf-fancy.c
> > @@ -80,10 +80,10 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> > };
> > struct sock_fprog prog = {
> > .filter = filter,
> > - .len = (unsigned short)(sizeof(filter)/sizeof(filter[0])),
> > + .len = (unsigned short)(ARRAY_SIZE(filter)),
> > };
> > ssize_t bytes;
> > - bpf_resolve_jumps(&l, filter, sizeof(filter)/sizeof(*filter));
> > + bpf_resolve_jumps(&l, filter, ARRAY_SIZE(filter));
Hm, this is the "samples" tree, so this was intentionally avoiding these
kinds of kernel-isms, but perhaps that doesn't realistically matter?
-Kees
>
> > if (prctl(PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS, 1, 0, 0, 0)) {
> > perror("prctl(NO_NEW_PRIVS)");
> > --
> > 2.25.1
--
Kees Cook
