On Wed, 2015-07-15 at 08:16 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:37 AM, Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au>
> wrote:
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
> > b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
> > index b2374c131340..51adb9afb511 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
> > @@ -82,7 +82,13 @@ struct seccomp_data {
> > };
> > #endif
> >
> > +#if __BYTE_ORDER == __LITTLE_ENDIAN
> > #define syscall_arg(_n) (offsetof(struct seccomp_data, args[_n]))
> > +#elif __BYTE_ORDER == __BIG_ENDIAN
> > +#define syscall_arg(_n) (offsetof(struct seccomp_data, args[_n]) +
> > sizeof(__u32))
> > +#else
> > +#error "wut?"
> > +#endif
>
> Ah-ha! Yes, thanks. Could you change the #error to something that
> describes the particular (impossible) failure condition? "wut? Unknown
> __BYTE_ORDER?!". Not a huge deal, but I always like verbose errors. :)
> Especially for "impossible" situations. :)
Yeah sorry that was a "quick hack" which got promoted into an actual patch.
Fixed to use your message.
cheers
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
