On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 11:31 AM Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On 09/05/2024 17:49, Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) wrote:
> > From: Geliang Tang
> >
> > This patch adds a subtest named test_subflow to load and verify the newly
> > added mptcp subflow example in test_mptcp. Add a helper
On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 12:36 AM Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>
> >
> > The concern with picking reno is extra deps to CI and every developer.
> > Currently in selftests/bpf/config we do:
> > CONFIG_TCP_CONG_DCTCP=y
> > CONFIG_TCP_CONG_BBR=y
> >
> > I'd like to avoid adding reno there as well.
> > Will
On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 9:03 AM Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>
> Hi Alexei,
>
> Thank you for the review!
>
> On 07/05/2024 16:49, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 3:53 AM Matthieu Baerts (NGI0)
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Nicolas R
On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 9:02 AM Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>
> Hi Alexei,
>
> Thank you for the review!
>
> On 07/05/2024 16:44, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 3:53 AM Matthieu Baerts (NGI0)
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> From:
On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 3:53 AM Matthieu Baerts (NGI0)
wrote:
>
> From: Nicolas Rybowski
>
> Move Nicolas's patch into bpf selftests directory. This example added a
> test that was adding a different mark (SO_MARK) on each subflow, and
> changing the TCP CC only on the first subflow.
>
> This
On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 3:53 AM Matthieu Baerts (NGI0)
wrote:
>
> From: Geliang Tang
>
> Each MPTCP subtest tests test__start_subtest(suffix), then invokes
> test_suffix(). It makes sense to add a new macro RUN_MPTCP_TEST to
> simpolify the code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang
> Reviewed-by:
On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 3:53 AM Matthieu Baerts (NGI0)
wrote:
>
> From: Geliang Tang
>
> It's necessary to delete netns during the MPTCP bpf tests interrupt,
> otherwise the next tests run will fail due to unable to create netns.
>
> This patch adds a new SIGINT handle sig_int, and deletes
On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 6:59 AM Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
>
> If someone stores both a timer and a workqueue in a hash map, on free, we
> would walk it twice.
> Add a check in htab_free_malloced_timers_or_wq and free the timers
> and workqueues if they are present.
>
> Fixes: 246331e3f1ea ("bpf:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 7:56 PM Alexei Starovoitov
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 2:10 AM Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> >
> > +
> > +SEC("tc")
> > +/* test that workqueues can be used from an array
> > + */
> > +__retval(0)
> > +long t
On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 8:06 AM Alexei Starovoitov
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 7:55 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 2:10 AM Benjamin Tissoires
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > We need to teach the verifier about the se
On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 7:55 PM Alexei Starovoitov
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 2:10 AM Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> >
> > We need to teach the verifier about the second argument which is declared
> > as void * but which is of type KF_ARG_PTR_TO_MAP. We could hav
On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 2:10 AM Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
>
> +
> +SEC("tc")
> +/* test that workqueues can be used from an array
> + */
> +__retval(0)
> +long test_call_array_sleepable(void *ctx)
> +{
> + int key = 0;
> +
> + return test_elem_callback(, );
> +}
> +
> +SEC("syscall")
On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 2:10 AM Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> @@ -11018,6 +11027,7 @@ enum special_kfunc_type {
> KF_bpf_percpu_obj_drop_impl,
> KF_bpf_throw,
> KF_bpf_iter_css_task_new,
> + KF_bpf_wq_set_callback_impl,
> };
>
> BTF_SET_START(special_kfunc_set)
> @@
On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 2:10 AM Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
>
> We need to teach the verifier about the second argument which is declared
> as void * but which is of type KF_ARG_PTR_TO_MAP. We could have dropped
> this extra case if we declared the second argument as struct bpf_map *,
> but that
On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 2:09 AM Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
>
>
> -static void htab_map_free_timers(struct bpf_map *map)
> +static void htab_map_free_timers_and_wq(struct bpf_map *map)
> {
> struct bpf_htab *htab = container_of(map, struct bpf_htab, map);
>
> - /* We only free timer
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 8:14 AM Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
>
>
> Honestly I just felt the patch series was big enough for a PoC and
> comparison with sleepable bpf_timer. But if we think this needs not to
> be added, I guess that works too :)
It certainly did its job to compare the two and imo
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 8:12 AM Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
>
>
> It's something I added while adding the tests. And some tests were passing
> in case I was having a non sleepable callback. But if we have
> bpf_rcu_read_lock(), we are all fine and can reduce the complexity.
Not quite following
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 04:08:30PM +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> again, copy/paste from bpf_timer_start().
>
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires
> ---
> kernel/bpf/helpers.c | 24
> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 04:08:22PM +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> WRITE_ONCE(*(u64 *)field_ptr, 0);
> @@ -1119,6 +1127,8 @@ static int map_check_btf(struct bpf_map *map, struct
> bpf_token *token,
> }
> break;
>
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 04:08:19PM +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> Mostly a copy/paste from the bpf_timer API, without the initialization
> and free, as they will be done in a separate patch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires
Patches 2-6 look good.
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 04:08:21PM +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> Introduce support for KF_ARG_PTR_TO_WORKQUEUE. The kfuncs will use bpf_wq
> as argument and that will be recognized as workqueue argument by verifier.
> bpf_wq_kern casting can happen inside kfunc, but using bpf_wq in
> argument
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 04:08:24PM +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> We need to teach the verifier about the second argument which is declared
> as void * but which is of type KF_ARG_PTR_TO_MAP. We could have dropped
> this extra case if we declared the second argument as struct bpf_map *,
> but
s/testing/selftests/net/sample_map_ret0.bpf.c
> @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ struct {
> } array SEC(".maps");
>
> /* Sample program which should always load for testing control paths. */
> -SEC(".text") int func()
> +SEC("xdp") int func()
It bitrotted so much.. ouch.
For the series:
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov
On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 1:09 AM Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
>
> New version of the sleepable bpf_timer code.
>
> I'm posting this as this is the result of the previous review, so we can
> have a baseline to compare to.
>
> The plan is now to introduce a new user API struct bpf_wq, as the timer
> API
On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 4:01 PM Eduard Zingerman wrote:
>
> > +SEC("tc")
> > +/* check that calling bpf_timer_start() with a delay on a sleepable
> > + * callback is returning -EINVAL
> > + */
> > +__retval(-22)
> > +long test_call_sleepable_delay(void *ctx)
> > +{
> > + int key = 2;
> > +
On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 1:10 AM Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
>
> cp include/uapi/linux/bpf.h tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
>
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires
>
> ---
>
> updated in v6
>
> no changes in v5
>
> new in v4
> ---
> tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 20 +---
> 1 file
On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 3:36 PM Eduard Zingerman wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2024-04-08 at 10:09 +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> > Now that we have bpf_timer_set_sleepable_cb() available and working, we
> > can tag the attached callback as sleepable, and let the verifier check
> > in the correct context
On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 10:20 AM Benjamin Tissoires
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 7:08 PM Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2024-04-08 at 10:09 +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> > > index
On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 8:46 AM Benjamin Tissoires
wrote:
>
> Alright, as of today (and I'm about to be AFK for the weekend), I got
> your changes in and working (I think). I'll review the series on
> Monday and send it back so we have a baseline to compare it to with
> bpf_wq.
Nice! Looking
On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 10:56 AM Benjamin Tissoires
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 6:41 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 8:27 AM Benjamin Tissoires
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > &g
On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 8:27 AM Benjamin Tissoires
wrote:
>
>
> >
> > So we need something like:
> >
> > struct bpf_hrtimer {
> > union {
> > struct hrtimer timer;
> > + struct work_struct work;
> > };
> > struct bpf_map *map;
> > struct bpf_prog *prog;
> > void __rcu *callback_fn;
On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 6:01 PM Alexei Starovoitov
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 11:50 AM Alexei Starovoitov
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 10:02 AM Benjamin Tissoires
> > wrote:
> > > > > goto out;
> > > > &
On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 11:50 AM Alexei Starovoitov
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 10:02 AM Benjamin Tissoires
> wrote:
> > > > goto out;
> > > > }
> > > > + spin_lock(>sleepable_lock);
> > > &
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 10:02 AM Benjamin Tissoires
wrote:
> > > goto out;
> > > }
> > > + spin_lock(>sleepable_lock);
> > > drop_prog_refcnt(t);
> > > + spin_unlock(>sleepable_lock);
> >
> > this also looks odd.
>
> I basically need to protect "t->prog
On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 2:39 PM Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 02:22:28PM +0100, Djalal Harouni wrote:
> > It would be easy at least for me if I just start with cgroupv2 and
> > ensure that it has same available filenames as if we go through kernfs.
> > Not a root cgroup
On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 8:10 AM Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:43:46 +0800
> 梦龙董 wrote:
>
> > I have done a simple benchmark on creating 1000
> > trampolines. It is slow, quite slow, which consume up to
> > 60s. We can't do it this way.
> >
> > Now, I have a bad idea. How about
On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 2:01 PM Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 01:45:56PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 1:02 PM Tejun Heo wrote:
> > >
> > > There's also cgroup.kill which would be useful for simila
On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 1:02 PM Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> There's also cgroup.kill which would be useful for similar use cases. We can
> add interface for both but idk. Let's say we have something like the
> following (pardon the bad naming):
>
> bpf_cgroup_knob_write(struct cgroup *cgrp, char
On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 10:58 AM Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> Hello, Alexei.
>
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 10:32:24AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > It bothers me a bit that it's adding a dedicated interface for something
> > > which already has a defined userspace
On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 10:22 AM Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> Hello, Djalal.
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 11:53:22PM +0100, Djalal Harouni wrote:
> > This patch series adds support to freeze the task cgroup hierarchy
> > that is on a default cgroup v2 without going through kernfs interface.
> >
> > For
On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 7:56 AM Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
>
> They are implemented as a workqueue, which means that there are no
> guarantees of timing nor ordering.
>
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires
>
> ---
>
> no changes in v5
>
> changes in v4:
> - dropped __bpf_timer_compute_key()
> -
On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 9:57 PM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Observation is correct. The patch is buggy,
> > > > but the suggestion to follow process_dynptr_func() will lead
> > > > to unnecessary complexity.
> > > > dynptr-s are on stack with plenty of extra checks.
> > >
> >
On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 9:01 PM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
wrote:
>
> On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 at 04:53, Alexei Starovoitov
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 9:31 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 at 15:57, Benjami
On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 9:31 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 at 15:57, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> >
> > We need to extend the bpf_timer API, but the way forward relies on kfuncs.
> > So make bpf_timer known for kfuncs from the verifier PoV
> >
> > Signed-off-by:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 7:41 AM Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 11:03:01PM -0600, Jose Fernandez wrote:
> > This patch enhances the BPF helpers by adding a kfunc to retrieve the
> > cgroup v2 of a task, addressing a previous limitation where only
> > bpf_task_get_cgroup1 was
On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 10:04 PM Jose Fernandez wrote:
>
> This patch enhances the BPF helpers by adding a kfunc to retrieve the
> cgroup v2 of a task, addressing a previous limitation where only
> bpf_task_get_cgroup1 was available for cgroup v1. The new kfunc is
> particularly useful for
On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 8:10 PM Ratheesh Kannoth wrote:
>
> On 2024-03-16 at 21:52:41, Jose Fernandez (jo...@netflix.com) wrote:
> > This patch adds a selftest for the `bpf_task_get_cgroup` kfunc. The test
> > focuses on the use case of obtaining the cgroup ID of the previous task
> > in a
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 6:53 PM 梦龙董 wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 12:42 AM Alexei Starovoitov
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 7:42 PM 梦龙董 wrote:
> > >
> [..]
> >
> > I see.
> > I thought you're sharing the trampoline
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 7:42 PM 梦龙董 wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 10:09 AM Alexei Starovoitov
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 7:01 PM 梦龙董 wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 9:46 AM Alexei Starovoitov
> > > wrote:
> >
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 7:44 PM 梦龙董 wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 9:56 AM Alexei Starovoitov
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 2:35 AM Menglong Dong
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > - err = libbpf_find_att
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 7:05 PM 梦龙董 wrote:
>
> > >
> > > +LIBBPF_API void bpf_object__free_btfs(struct bpf_object *obj);
> > > +
> >
> > It shouldn't be exported.
> > libbpf should clean it up when bpf_object is freed.
>
> Yes, libbpf will clean up the btfs when bpf_object is freed in
> this
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 7:01 PM 梦龙董 wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 9:46 AM Alexei Starovoitov
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 2:34 AM Menglong Dong
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > In this commit, we add the 'accessed_args' field to struc
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 2:35 AM Menglong Dong
wrote:
>
>
> - err = libbpf_find_attach_btf_id(prog, attach_name,
> _obj_fd, _type_id);
> + name_end = strchr(attach_name, ',');
> + /* for multi-link tracing, use the first target symbol during
> +
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 2:35 AM Menglong Dong
wrote:
>
> By default, the kernel btf that we load during loading program will be
> freed after the programs are loaded in bpf_object_load(). However, we
> still need to use these btf for tracing of multi-link during attaching.
> Therefore, we don't
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 2:35 AM Menglong Dong
wrote:
>
> Add target btf to the function args of bpf_check_attach_target(), then
> the caller can specify the btf to check.
>
> Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong
> ---
> include/linux/bpf_verifier.h | 1 +
> kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 6 --
>
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 2:34 AM Menglong Dong
wrote:
>
> Refactor the struct modules_array to more general struct ptr_array, which
> is used to store the pointers.
>
> Meanwhiles, introduce the bpf_try_add_ptr(), which checks the existing of
> the ptr before adding it to the array.
>
> Seems it
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 2:34 AM Menglong Dong
wrote:
>
> In this commit, we add the 'accessed_args' field to struct bpf_prog_aux,
> which is used to record the accessed index of the function args in
> btf_ctx_access().
>
> Meanwhile, we add the function btf_check_func_part_match() to compare the
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 8:51 AM Benjamin Tissoires
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 5:36 PM Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2024-02-27 at 17:18 +0100, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > > Hmm, I must still be missing a piece of the puzzle:
> > > if I declare
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 8:25 AM Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> @@ -18193,7 +18198,7 @@ static int resolve_pseudo_ldimm64(struct
> bpf_verifier_env *env)
> return -E2BIG;
> }
>
> - if (env->prog->aux->sleepable)
> +
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 8:25 AM Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
>
> In this patch, bpf_timer_set_sleepable_cb() is functionally equivalent
> to bpf_timer_set_callback(), to the exception that it enforces
> the timer to be started with BPF_F_TIMER_SLEEPABLE.
>
> But given that bpf_timer_set_callback()
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 8:25 AM Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> /* the actual struct hidden inside uapi struct bpf_timer */
> @@ -1113,6 +1120,55 @@ struct bpf_timer_kern {
> struct bpf_spin_lock lock;
> } __attribute__((aligned(8)));
>
> +static u32 __bpf_timer_compute_key(struct
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 7:06 PM 梦龙董 wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 11:02 AM Alexei Starovoitov
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 6:45 PM 梦龙董 wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 10:35 AM 梦龙董 wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 6:45 PM 梦龙董 wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 10:35 AM 梦龙董 wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 9:24 AM Alexei Starovoitov
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 7:51 PM Menglong Dong
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 Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 06:18:32PM +0100, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> These 2 maps types are required for HID-BPF when a user wants to do
> IO with a device from a sleepable tracing point.
>
> Allowing BPF_MAP_TYPE_QUEUE (and therefore BPF_MAP_TYPE_STACK) allows
> for a BPF program to prepare
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
On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 7:51 PM Menglong Dong
wrote:
>
> For now, the BPF program of type BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING is not allowed to
> be attached to multiple hooks, and we have to create a BPF program for
> each kernel function, for which we want to trace, even through all the
> program have the
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 08:51:26PM +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi writes:
>
> > On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 at 18:46, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> >>
> >> On Feb 12 2024, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 08:23:17PM +0100, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 at 18:46, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> >
> > On Feb 12 2024, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 10:21 AM Benjamin Tissoires
> > > wrote:
> > &
On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 10:21 AM Benjamin Tissoires
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 6:46 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
> wrote:
> >
> > Benjamin Tissoires writes:
> >
> > [...]
> > >> IIUC, the bpf_timer callback is just a function (subprog) from the
> > >> verifier PoV, so it is verified as
On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 7:00 AM Vincent Li wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 4:23 AM Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2024-01-19 at 16:04 +0800, Shung-Hsi Yu wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > Final goal would be have BPF selftests compiled and test against our own
> > > kernel, without
On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 12:44 PM Maxim Mikityanskiy wrote:
>
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 at 11:10:57 -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 12:53 PM Maxim Mikityanskiy
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Maxim Mikityanskiy
> > >
> &
On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 12:53 PM Maxim Mikityanskiy wrote:
>
> From: Maxim Mikityanskiy
>
> Support the pattern where an unbounded scalar is spilled to the stack,
> then boundary checks are performed on the src register, after which the
> stack frame slot is refilled into a register.
>
> Before
On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 11:40 AM Nathan Chancellor wrote:
>
> Hi Yonghong,
>
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 08:05:36PM -0800, Yonghong Song wrote:
> >
> > On 1/9/24 2:16 PM, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > > reviews.llvm.org was LLVM's Phabricator instances for code review. It
> > > has been abandoned in
On Mon, Dec 25, 2023 at 1:11 PM Maxim Mikityanskiy wrote:
>
> On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 at 19:15:42 -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 1:40 PM Maxim Mikityanskiy
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Maxim Mikityanskiy
> > >
> > >
On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 1:40 PM Maxim Mikityanskiy wrote:
>
> From: Maxim Mikityanskiy
>
> Currently, when a scalar bounded register is spilled to the stack, its
> ID is preserved, but only if was already assigned, i.e. if this register
> was MOVed before.
>
> Assign an ID on spill if none is
On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 7:10 PM Alexei Starovoitov
wrote:
>
> Just realized that we can go the other way instead.
>
> We can get rid of bpf_assert_eq/ne/... and replace with:
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_experimental.h
> b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_e
On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 6:46 PM Alexei Starovoitov
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 2:56 PM Daniel Xu wrote:
> >
> > These macros are a temporary stop-gap until bpf exceptions support
> > unwinding acquired entities. Basically these macros act as if they take
>
On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 2:56 PM Daniel Xu wrote:
>
> These macros are a temporary stop-gap until bpf exceptions support
> unwinding acquired entities. Basically these macros act as if they take
> a callback which only get executed if the assertion fails.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu
> ---
>
On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 12:24 PM Daniel Xu wrote:
>
>
> Looks like only x86 supports exceptions (looking at
> bpf_jit_supports_exceptions()).
>
> This causes selftests in this patchset to fail on !x86, which is
> unfortunate. We probably want to be running these tests on all the major
> archs, so
On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 8:17 AM Daniel Xu wrote:
>
>
> If you don't mind (and there no more comments), I would prefer to send a
> follow up fixing the nits in this revision. So that I stop blasting the
> list (as well as people who may not be as concerned with these details).
Resending patches
On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 12:23 PM Daniel Xu wrote:
>
> This patchset adds two kfunc helpers, bpf_xdp_get_xfrm_state() and
> bpf_xdp_xfrm_state_release() that wrap xfrm_state_lookup() and
> xfrm_state_put(). The intent is to support software RSS (via XDP) for
> the ongoing/upcoming ipsec pcpu work
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/bpf/progs/test_tunnel_kern.c
>
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 10:21 AM Daniel Xu wrote:
>
> +
> + bpf_printk("replay-window %d\n", x->replay_esn->replay_window);
Pls no printk in tests. Find a different way to validate.
On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 7:38 PM Jason Wang wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 7:53 AM Alexei Starovoitov
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 15, 2023 at 10:10 AM Akihiko Odaki
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2023/10/16 1:07, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >
On Sun, Oct 15, 2023 at 10:10 AM Akihiko Odaki wrote:
>
> On 2023/10/16 1:07, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 15, 2023 at 7:17 AM Akihiko Odaki
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> >
On Sun, Oct 15, 2023 at 7:17 AM Akihiko Odaki wrote:
>
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> index 0448700890f7..298634556fab 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> @@ -988,6 +988,7 @@ enum bpf_prog_type {
>
On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 4:26 AM Luis Gerhorst wrote:
>
> It is true that this is not easily possible using the method most exploits
> use,
> at least to my knowledge (i.e., accessing the same address from another core).
> However, it is still possible to evict the cacheline with
On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 7:50 AM Puranjay Mohan wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 3:49 PM Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> >
> > On 9/8/23 10:37 AM, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 07, 2023 at 11:05:50PM +, Puranjay Mohan wrote:
> > >> As Shubham has been inactive since 2017, Add myself
On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 10:24 AM Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>
> On 9/14/23 6:20 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 5:30 AM Luis Gerhorst wrote:
> >>
> >> This reverts commit d75e30dddf73449bc2d10bb8e2f1a2c446bc67a2.
> >>
> >
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 5:30 AM Luis Gerhorst wrote:
>
> This reverts commit d75e30dddf73449bc2d10bb8e2f1a2c446bc67a2.
>
> To mitigate Spectre v1, the verifier relies on static analysis to deduct
> constant pointer bounds, which can then be enforced by rewriting pointer
> arithmetic [1] or index
91 matches
Mail list logo
