On 01/04/2017 11:48 PM, Sowmini Varadhan wrote:
On (01/04/17 23:26), Daniel Borkmann wrote:
[...]
As it stands it makes it a bit harder to parse / less readable with macros
actually. Rest seems fine, thanks.
Usually macros are there (a) as an abstraction so you
dont have to hard-code things, and, (b) to make things
more readable. (maybe that's why the 1992 VJ paper on
BPF came up with these macros?)
I think we differ on code-aesthetics (not correctness) here.
It was not immediately obvious to me that "0x15 is actually
BPF_JMP + BPF_JEQ + BPF_K" etc, when I wanted to extend
the bpf_prog to harden the checks in the existing code.
Would it be ok to leave the extremely subjective
"make this more readable" part for you to tackle later?
Or I can just drop patch1, and you can fix it to your
satisfaction later.
I think we're talking past each other (?), my suggestion
from my original email was to use bpf_asm and paste the
(human readable) program as a comment above as done also
elsewhere. But just leave it as it is then, no big deal
either.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kselftest" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
