Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] libseccomp: add cacheflush to whitelist

[Markus Armbruster]

Andrew Jones <address@hidden> writes:

> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 04:58:13PM +0200, Eduardo Otubo wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 03=25=00PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> > Andrew Jones <address@hidden> writes:
>> > 
>> > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:03:37AM +0200, Eduardo Otubo wrote:
>> > >> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11=39=46AM +0200, Eduardo Otubo wrote:
>> > >> > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 03=50=04PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
>> > >> > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:31:19AM +0200, Eduardo Otubo wrote:
>> > >> > > > On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 09=12=33AM -0400, Andrew Jones wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > >> > > > > diff --git a/qemu-seccomp.c b/qemu-seccomp.c
>> > >> > > > > index f9de0d3390feb..33644a4e3c3d3 100644
>> > >> > > > > --- a/qemu-seccomp.c
>> > >> > > > > +++ b/qemu-seccomp.c
>> > >> > > > > @@ -237,7 +237,8 @@ static const struct
>> > >> > > > > QemuSeccompSyscall seccomp_whitelist[] = {
>> > >> > > > >      { SCMP_SYS(fadvise64), 240 },
>> > >> > > > >      { SCMP_SYS(inotify_init1), 240 },
>> > >> > > > >      { SCMP_SYS(inotify_add_watch), 240 },
>> > >> > > > > -    { SCMP_SYS(mbind), 240 }
>> > >> > > > > +    { SCMP_SYS(mbind), 240 },
>> > >> > > > > +    { SCMP_SYS(cacheflush), 240 },
>> > >> 
>> > >> FYI: I had to fixed this minor mistake (using comma at the end of the
>> > >> list) before applying your patch.
>> > >
>> > > Does that violate a QEMU coding style? Because I actually put it there
>> > > on purpose so the next addition wouldn't have to modify the line (by
>> > > adding a comma), making git-blame more difficult to use.
>> > 
>> > We have trailing commas all over the place, for precisely the reason you
>> > gave.  I recommend to put it right back.
>> > 
>> 
>> Well, that makes a lot of sense. I'll just put it back again and send
>> the pull request once more.
>> 
>> ps.: I just thought the guideline said to make sure every commit should
>> be "compilable" with no errors, perhaps I saw it somewhere else. Sorry
>> for the trouble.
>
> Does your complier complain about that trailing comma? I thought
> allowing that was even part of the ANSI C standard.

It's C99.