From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>
To: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <borkmann@iogearbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, brouer@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC bpf-next PATCH] bpf: add comments to BPF ld/ldx sizes
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 11:41:02 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180117114102.5e4d142a@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cc1bddb8-7be3-9969-a5e9-7e8682caee68@iogearbox.net>
On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 00:21:27 +0100
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> wrote:
> On 01/16/2018 12:31 PM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> > Doc BPF ld/ldx size defines, as it help me understand the code in filter.c.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > 0 files changed
> >
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > index 395d261948de..4729d9a002d4 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@
> > #define BPF_ALU64 0x07 /* alu mode in double word width */
> >
> > /* ld/ldx fields */
> > -#define BPF_DW 0x18 /* double word */
> > +#define BPF_DW 0x18 /* double word (64-bit) */
> > #define BPF_XADD 0xc0 /* exclusive add */
> >
> > /* alu/jmp fields */
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf_common.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf_common.h
> > index 18be90725ab0..ee97668bdadb 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf_common.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf_common.h
> > @@ -15,9 +15,10 @@
> >
> > /* ld/ldx fields */
> > #define BPF_SIZE(code) ((code) & 0x18)
> > -#define BPF_W 0x00
> > -#define BPF_H 0x08
> > -#define BPF_B 0x10
> > +#define BPF_W 0x00 /* 32-bit */
> > +#define BPF_H 0x08 /* 16-bit */
> > +#define BPF_B 0x10 /* 8-bit */
> > +/* eBPF BPF_DW 0x18 64-bit */
>
> Hmm, I don't really mind, but we do have it documented in:
>
> Documentation/networking/filter.txt +942
>
> Feels like if we put a comment only on BPF_{B,H,W}, then we
> might also want to document all the others such as ALU ops,
> etc.
We can start out small. I made an actual mistake by misunderstanding
these sizes (this was also because BPF_DW is located in another file,
so I didn't deduce BPF_W was 32-bit not 64-bit). I missed the
documentation you reference. Documentation is good, but I practice
placing the documentation as close as possible to where you need it. In
a programming setting, I looked up the define BPF_W (with cscope) in a
second, while it will take minutes finding the right documentation.
--
Best regards,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer
MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-17 10:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-16 11:31 [RFC bpf-next PATCH] bpf: add comments to BPF ld/ldx sizes Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2018-01-16 23:21 ` Daniel Borkmann
2018-01-17 10:41 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180117114102.5e4d142a@redhat.com \
--to=brouer@redhat.com \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=borkmann@iogearbox.net \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).