[replying to both of your messages here]
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 3:59 AM Alexei Starovoitov
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 10:50:10AM +0100, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> > static bool is_rbtree_lock_required_kfunc(u32 btf_id)
> > {
> > return is_bpf_rbtree_api_kfunc(btf_id);
> > @@
On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 10:50:10AM +0100, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> static bool is_rbtree_lock_required_kfunc(u32 btf_id)
> {
> return is_bpf_rbtree_api_kfunc(btf_id);
> @@ -12140,6 +12143,16 @@ static int check_kfunc_call(struct bpf_verifier_env
> *env, struct bpf_insn *insn,
>
On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 03:58:20PM +0100, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
>
> So (and this also answers your second email today) I'm thinking at:
> - have multiple flags to control the timer (with dedicated timer_cb
> kernel functions):
> - BPF_F_TIMER_HRTIMER (default)
> - BPF_F_TIMER_WORKER (no
Benjamin Tissoires writes:
> On Feb 16 2024, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Benjamin Tissoires writes:
>>
>> > On Feb 15 2024, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
>> >> On 2/14/24 9:18 AM, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
>> >> > +static void bpf_timer_work_cb(struct work_struct *work)
>> >> > +{
>> >> > +
On 2/14/24 09:18, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
+static void bpf_timer_work_cb(struct work_struct *work)
+{
+ struct bpf_hrtimer *t = container_of(work, struct bpf_hrtimer, work);
+ struct bpf_map *map = t->map;
+ void *value = t->value;
+ bpf_callback_t callback_fn;
+ void *key;
+ u32 idx;
+
+
On Feb 16 2024, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Benjamin Tissoires writes:
>
> > On Feb 15 2024, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> >> On 2/14/24 9:18 AM, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> >> > +static void bpf_timer_work_cb(struct work_struct *work)
> >> > +{
> >> > +struct bpf_hrtimer *t =
Just one comment on one of your FIXMEs:
> + rcu_assign_pointer(t->sleepable_cb_fn, NULL);
> + /* FIXME: probably do something about the SLEEPABLE flag */
I guess we should store the flag in the timer struct somewhere, and then
restrict the set_callback() functions so that the regular
Benjamin Tissoires writes:
> On Feb 15 2024, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
>> On 2/14/24 9:18 AM, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
>> > +static void bpf_timer_work_cb(struct work_struct *work)
>> > +{
>> > + struct bpf_hrtimer *t = container_of(work, struct bpf_hrtimer, work);
>> > + struct bpf_map *map =
On Feb 15 2024, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> On Feb 14 2024, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> > They are implemented as a kfunc, which means a little bit of tweaks in
> > the verifier.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires
> >
> > ---
> >
> > changes in v2 (compared to the one attaches to v1
On Feb 15 2024, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On 2/14/24 9:18 AM, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> > +static void bpf_timer_work_cb(struct work_struct *work)
> > +{
> > + struct bpf_hrtimer *t = container_of(work, struct bpf_hrtimer, work);
> > + struct bpf_map *map = t->map;
> > + void *value =
On 2/14/24 9:18 AM, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
+static void bpf_timer_work_cb(struct work_struct *work)
+{
+ struct bpf_hrtimer *t = container_of(work, struct bpf_hrtimer, work);
+ struct bpf_map *map = t->map;
+ void *value = t->value;
+ bpf_callback_t callback_fn;
+
On Feb 14 2024, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> They are implemented as a kfunc, which means a little bit of tweaks in
> the verifier.
>
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires
>
> ---
>
> changes in v2 (compared to the one attaches to v1 0/9):
> - make use of a kfunc
> - add a (non-used)
They are implemented as a kfunc, which means a little bit of tweaks in
the verifier.
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires
---
changes in v2 (compared to the one attaches to v1 0/9):
- make use of a kfunc
- add a (non-used) BPF_F_TIMER_SLEEPABLE
- the callback is *not* called, it makes the kernel
13 matches
Mail list logo
