On 5/3/24 6:55 AM, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
On 4/5/24 1:06 AM, Yonghong Song wrote:
On 4/3/24 5:03 AM, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
On 4/3/24 7:36 AM, Yonghong Song wrote:
On 4/2/24 8:16 AM, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
Yonghong Song,
Thank you so much for replying. I was missing how
quot;free(input)" in parse_stats() to avoid
memory leak in veristat.c.
Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang
Acked-by: Yonghong Song
"free(ptr)" in check_whitelist() and
check_blacklist() to avoid memory leaks in test_sockmap.c.
Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang
Acked-by: Yonghong Song
On 4/24/24 7:42 PM, Xu Kuohai wrote:
On 4/25/2024 6:06 AM, Yonghong Song wrote:
On 4/23/24 7:25 PM, Xu Kuohai wrote:
On 4/24/2024 5:55 AM, Yonghong Song wrote:
On 4/20/24 1:33 AM, Xu Kuohai wrote:
On 4/20/2024 7:00 AM, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
On Thu, 2024-04-11 at 20:27 +0800, Xu Kuohai
On 4/23/24 7:25 PM, Xu Kuohai wrote:
On 4/24/2024 5:55 AM, Yonghong Song wrote:
On 4/20/24 1:33 AM, Xu Kuohai wrote:
On 4/20/2024 7:00 AM, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
On Thu, 2024-04-11 at 20:27 +0800, Xu Kuohai wrote:
From: Xu Kuohai
With lsm return value check, the no-alu32 version
On 4/20/24 1:33 AM, Xu Kuohai wrote:
On 4/20/2024 7:00 AM, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
On Thu, 2024-04-11 at 20:27 +0800, Xu Kuohai wrote:
From: Xu Kuohai
With lsm return value check, the no-alu32 version
test_libbpf_get_fd_by_id_opts
is rejected by the verifier, and the log says:
0:
On 4/9/24 8:32 AM, Michal Koutný wrote:
Hi.
On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 07:20:45PM +0100, Djalal Harouni
wrote:
Thanks yes, I would expect freeze to behave like signal, and if one
wants to block immediately there is the LSM override return. The
selftest attached tries to do exactly that.
Are
of the file calls it.
Signed-off-by: Jason Xing
But your change looks fine.
Acked-by: Yonghong Song
On 4/3/24 5:03 AM, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
On 4/3/24 7:36 AM, Yonghong Song wrote:
On 4/2/24 8:16 AM, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
Yonghong Song,
Thank you so much for replying. I was missing how to run pipeline manually.
Thanks a ton.
On 4/1/24 11:53 PM, Yonghong Song wrote:
On 4/1/24
On 4/2/24 8:16 AM, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
Yonghong Song,
Thank you so much for replying. I was missing how to run pipeline manually.
Thanks a ton.
On 4/1/24 11:53 PM, Yonghong Song wrote:
On 4/1/24 5:34 AM, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
Move test_dev_cgroup.c to prog_tests/dev_cgroup.c
On 4/1/24 5:34 AM, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
Move test_dev_cgroup.c to prog_tests/dev_cgroup.c to be able to run it
with test_progs. Replace dev_cgroup.bpf.o with skel header file,
dev_cgroup.skel.h and load program from it accourdingly.
./test_progs -t dev_cgroup
mknod:
Reviewed-by: Tycho Andersen
Acked-by: Yonghong Song
On 2/8/24 2:54 AM, Marco Elver wrote:
On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 08:37AM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 at 00:58, Yonghong Song wrote:
On 2/7/24 4:26 AM, Marco Elver wrote:
In various performance profiles of kernels with BPF programs attached,
bpf_local_storage_lookup() appears
On 2/7/24 4:26 AM, Marco Elver wrote:
In various performance profiles of kernels with BPF programs attached,
bpf_local_storage_lookup() appears as a significant portion of CPU
cycles spent. To enable the compiler generate more optimal code, turn
bpf_local_storage_lookup() into a static inline
On 1/31/24 6:18 AM, Marco Elver wrote:
To allow the compiler to inline the bpf_local_storage_lookup() fast-
path, factor it out by making bpf_local_storage_lookup() a static inline
function and move the slow-path to bpf_local_storage_lookup_slowpath().
Base on results from
On 1/18/24 8:05 AM, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
On Thu, 2024-01-18 at 17:58 +0200, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
[...]
here is how config for x86 CI is prepared:
./scripts/kconfig/merge_config.sh \
./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/config \
./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/config.vm \
of fidelity in
the relevant information.
Additionally, fix a typo in the xdpwall.c print ("LLMV" -> "LLVM") while
in the area.
Link: https://discourse.llvm.org/t/update-on-github-pull-requests/71540/172
Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor
Ack with one nit below.
Acked-by:
On 1/2/24 6:54 PM, Menglong Dong wrote:
On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 8:52 AM Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
On 1/2/24 10:11 AM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
On 12/29, Menglong Dong wrote:
For now, we have to call some helpers when we need to update the csum,
such as bpf_l4_csum_replace,
On 12/7/23 5:08 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 2:56 PM Kyle Huey wrote:
On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 11:20 AM Marco Elver wrote:
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 at 20:12, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 8:35 AM Kyle Huey wrote:
The test sets a hardware breakpoint and uses a bpf
On 12/4/23 3:14 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
The test sets a hardware breakpoint and uses a bpf program to suppress the
I/O availability signal if the ip matches the expected value.
Signed-off-by: Kyle Huey
---
.../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/perf_skip.c | 95 +++
On 11/27/23 7:01 PM, Daniel Xu wrote:
On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 02:45:11PM -0600, Daniel Xu wrote:
On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 09:53:04PM -0800, Yonghong Song wrote:
On 11/27/23 12:44 AM, Yonghong Song wrote:
On 11/26/23 8:52 PM, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
On Sun, 2023-11-26 at 18:04 -0600, Daniel
On 11/27/23 12:44 AM, Yonghong Song wrote:
On 11/26/23 8:52 PM, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
On Sun, 2023-11-26 at 18:04 -0600, Daniel Xu wrote:
[...]
Tbh I'm not sure. This test passes with preserve_static_offset
because it suppresses preserve_access_index. In general clang
translates bitfield
On 11/26/23 8:52 PM, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
On Sun, 2023-11-26 at 18:04 -0600, Daniel Xu wrote:
[...]
Tbh I'm not sure. This test passes with preserve_static_offset
because it suppresses preserve_access_index. In general clang
translates bitfield access to a set of IR statements like:
C:
On 11/26/23 3:14 PM, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
On Sat, 2023-11-25 at 20:22 -0800, Yonghong Song wrote:
[...]
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_tunnel_kern.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_tunnel_kern.c
@@ -6,7 +6,10 @@
* modify it under the terms of version 2
On 11/25/23 7:54 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 4:52 PM Yonghong Song wrote:
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_tunnel_kern.c
b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_tunnel_kern.c
index 3065a716544d..ec7e04e012ae 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests
On 11/22/23 1:20 PM, Daniel Xu wrote:
Switching to vmlinux.h definitions seems to make the verifier very
unhappy with bitfield accesses. The error is:
; md.u.md2.dir = direction;
33: (69) r1 = *(u16 *)(r2 +11)
misaligned stack access off (0x0; 0x0)+-64+11 size 2
It looks like
On 11/22/23 1:20 PM, Daniel Xu wrote:
vmlinux.h declarations are more ergnomic, especially when working with
kfuncs. The uapi headers are often incomplete for kfunc definitions.
Co-developed-by: Antony Antony
Signed-off-by: Antony Antony
Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu
---
On 11/20/23 7:03 PM, Yuran Pereira wrote:
Multiple files/programs in `tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/` still
heavily use the `CHECK` macro, even when better `ASSERT_` alternatives are
available.
As it was already pointed out by Yonghong Song [1] in the bpf selftests the use
On 11/20/23 12:15 PM, Yuran Pereira wrote:
Hello Yonghong,
On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 07:22:59AM -0800, Yonghong Song wrote:
- if (CHECK(!err || errno != ENOENT,
- "bpf_map_lookup_elem(sk_stg_map)",
- "err:%d errno:%d
On 11/18/23 1:47 PM, Yuran Pereira wrote:
vmlinux.c uses the `CHECK` calls even though the use of ASSERT_ series
of macros is preferred in the bpf selftests.
This patch replaces all `CHECK` calls for equivalent `ASSERT_`
macro calls.
Signed-off-by: Yuran Pereira
Acked-by: Yonghong Song
On 11/18/23 1:45 PM, Yuran Pereira wrote:
bpf_obj_id uses the `CHECK` calls even though the use of
ASSERT_ series of macros is preferred in the bpf selftests.
This patch replaces all `CHECK` calls for equivalent `ASSERT_`
macro calls.
Signed-off-by: Yuran Pereira
Acked-by: Yonghong Song
On 11/18/23 1:44 PM, Yuran Pereira wrote:
bind_perm uses the `CHECK` calls even though the use of
ASSERT_ series of macros is preferred in the bpf selftests.
This patch replaces all `CHECK` calls for equivalent `ASSERT_`
macro calls.
Signed-off-by: Yuran Pereira
Acked-by: Yonghong Song
On 11/18/23 1:42 PM, Yuran Pereira wrote:
bpf_tcp_ca uses the `CHECK` calls even though the use of
ASSERT_ series of macros is preferred in the bpf selftests.
This patch replaces all `CHECK` calls for equivalent `ASSERT_`
macro calls.
Signed-off-by: Yuran Pereira
---
-by: Yonghong Song
On 10/27/23 10:24 PM, Yuran Pereira wrote:
As it was pointed out by Yonghong Song [1], in the bpf selftests the use
of the ASSERT_* series of macros is preferred over the CHECK macro.
This patch replaces all CHECK calls in bpf_iter with the appropriate
ASSERT_* macros.
[1] https
On 10/25/23 9:33 PM, Kui-Feng Lee wrote:
On 10/25/23 19:03, Yuran Pereira wrote:
As it was pointed out by Yonghong Song [1], in the bpf selftests the use
of the ASSERT_* series of macros is preferred over the CHECK macro.
This patch replaces all CHECK calls in bpf_iter with the appropriate
-by: Yonghong Song
On 10/24/23 3:43 PM, Yuran Pereira wrote:
As it was pointed out by Yonghong Song [1], in the bpf selftests the use
of the ASSERT_* series of macros is preferred over the CHECK macro.
This patch replaces all CHECK calls in bpf_iter with the appropriate
ASSERT_* macros.
[1] https
On 10/24/23 7:28 PM, Kui-Feng Lee wrote:
Thank you for the patches.
I found you have two patches in this set.
You can generate both patch at once with git format-patch.
format-patch will give each patch a number in their order.
For example, the subject of this message will be
[PATCH
On 10/23/23 7:59 PM, Yuran Pereira wrote:
Since some malloc calls in bpf_iter may at times fail,
this patch adds the appropriate fail checks, and ensures that
any previously allocated resource is appropriately destroyed
before returning the function.
Signed-off-by: Yuran Pereira
---
40 matches
Mail list logo
