Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/3] libbpf: Implement basic zip archive parsing support

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 10:55:13AM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 3:45 PM Daniel Müller <deso@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > This change implements support for reading zip archives, including
> > opening an archive, finding an entry based on its path and name in it,
> > and closing it.
> > The code was copied from https://github.com/iovisor/bcc/pull/4440, which
> > implements similar functionality for bcc. The author confirmed that he
> > is fine with this usage and the corresponding relicensing. I adjusted it
> > to adhere to libbpf coding standards.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Müller <deso@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Acked-by: Michał Gregorczyk <michalgr@xxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  tools/lib/bpf/Build |   2 +-
> >  tools/lib/bpf/zip.c | 326 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  tools/lib/bpf/zip.h |  47 +++++++
> >  3 files changed, 374 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >  create mode 100644 tools/lib/bpf/zip.c
> >  create mode 100644 tools/lib/bpf/zip.h
> >
> 
> [...]
> 
> > +
> > +static int find_cd(struct zip_archive *archive)
> > +{
> > +       __u32 offset;
> > +       int64_t limit;
> > +       int rc = -1;
> > +
> > +       if (archive->size <= sizeof(struct end_of_cd_record))
> > +               return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +       /* Because the end of central directory ends with a variable length array of
> > +        * up to 0xFFFF bytes we can't know exactly where it starts and need to
> > +        * search for it at the end of the file, scanning the (limit, offset] range.
> > +        */
> > +       offset = archive->size - sizeof(struct end_of_cd_record);
> > +       limit = (int64_t)offset - (1 << 16);
> > +
> > +       for (; offset >= 0 && offset > limit && rc == -1; offset--)
> 
> rc != 0 here to handle -EINVAL? It will keep going for -ENOTSUP,
> though, which is probably not right, so maybe (rc != 0 && rc !=
> -ENOTSUP)?
> 
> but with the latter it feels better to just have explicit if with
> return inside the for loop

Sounds good, will change.

[...]

Thanks,
Daniel



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux