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. --Sowmini
