On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 7:13 PM Nick Desaulniers wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 6:58 PM Andrii Nakryiko
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 5:31 PM Nick Desaulniers
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 12:14 PM Arnaldo Carvalho de M
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 2:09 PM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The v1.20 release of pahole and its friends is out, mostly
> addressing problems related to gcc 11 defaulting to DWARF5 for -g,
> available at the usual places:
Great, thanks, Arnaldo! Do you plan to build RPMs
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 8:34 PM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
wrote:
>
>
>
> On February 4, 2021 9:01:51 PM GMT-03:00, Andrii Nakryiko
> wrote:
> >On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 2:09 PM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo>
> >wrote:
> >> The v1.20 release o
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 10:27 PM Jiapeng Chong
wrote:
>
> Fix the following coccicheck warnings:
>
> ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xdpxceiver.c:954:28-30: WARNING !A || A &&
> B is equivalent to !A || B.
>
> ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xdpxceiver.c:932:28-30: WARNING !A || A &&
> B is equivalent
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 2:30 AM Yang Li wrote:
>
> Eliminate the following coccicheck warning:
> ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_flow_dissector.c:506:2-3: Unneeded
> semicolon
>
> Reported-by: Abaci Robot
> Signed-off-by: Yang Li
> ---
Applied to bpf-next, changing subject to have more
It's customary to send cover letter with patch sets of 2 or more
related patches. It's a good place to explain the motivation of a
patch set. And a good place to ack all patches in one go ;)
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko
> include/linux/bpf.h| 1 +
> include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 10:00 PM Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 12:27:01PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:
> > For double-checked locking in bpf_common_lru_push_free(), node->type is
> > read outside the critical section and then re-checked under the lock.
> > However, concurrent
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 8:31 AM Alan Maguire wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2021, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 10:56 PM Andrii Nakryiko
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 2:22 PM Alan Maguire
> > > wrote:
>
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 7:42 AM Christophe Leroy
wrote:
>
>
>
> Le 22/03/2021 à 18:53, Andrii Nakryiko a écrit :
> > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 9:37 AM Christophe Leroy
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> This series implements extended BPF on powerpc32. For the impleme
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 7:23 PM Florent Revest wrote:
>
> This type provides the guarantee that an argument is going to be a const
> pointer to somewhere in a read-only map value. It also checks that this
> pointer is followed by a zero character before the end of the map value.
>
>
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 7:23 PM Florent Revest wrote:
>
> The implementation takes inspiration from the existing bpf_trace_printk
> helper but there are a few differences:
>
> To allow for a large number of format-specifiers, parameters are
> provided in an array, like in bpf_seq_printf.
>
>
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 5:01 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
wrote:
>
> This change introduces a few helpers to wrap open coded attribute
> preparation in netlink.c.
>
> Every nested attribute's closure must happen using the helper
> end_nlattr_nested, which sets its length properly. NLA_F_NESTED is
>
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 7:23 PM Florent Revest wrote:
>
> When initializing the __param array with a one liner, if all args are
> const, the initial array value will be placed in the rodata section but
> because libbpf does not support relocation in the rodata section, any
> pointer in this array
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 2:53 PM Andrii Nakryiko
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 7:23 PM Florent Revest wrote:
> >
> > Two helpers (trace_printk and seq_printf) have very similar
> > implementations of format string parsing and a third one is coming
> > (snprin
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 7:23 PM Florent Revest wrote:
>
> Similarly to BPF_SEQ_PRINTF, this macro turns variadic arguments into an
> array of u64, making it more natural to call the bpf_snprintf helper.
>
> Signed-off-by: Florent Revest
> ---
> tools/lib/bpf/bpf_tracing.h | 18
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 7:23 PM Florent Revest wrote:
>
> Two helpers (trace_printk and seq_printf) have very similar
> implementations of format string parsing and a third one is coming
> (snprintf). To avoid code duplication and make the code easier to
> maintain, this moves the operations
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 7:23 PM Florent Revest wrote:
>
> This exercises most of the format specifiers when things go well.
>
> Signed-off-by: Florent Revest
> ---
Looks good. Please add a no-argument test case as well.
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko
> .../selftests/bpf/pro
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 5:01 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
wrote:
>
> Update the header file so we can use the new defines in subsequent
> patches.
>
> Reviewed-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
> Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
> ---
> tools/include/uapi/linux/pkt_cls.h | 174
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 8:54 PM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 04:55:51AM IST, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 5:01 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Update the header file so we can use the new
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 8:02 AM Pedro Tammela wrote:
>
> The current code bails out with negative and positive returns.
> If the callback returns a positive return code, 'ring_buffer__consume()'
> and 'ring_buffer__poll()' will return a spurious number of records
> consumed, but mostly important
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 8:22 AM Lorenz Bauer wrote:
>
> Invoking BPF_OBJ_GET on a pinned bpf_link checks the path access
> permissions based on file_flags, but the returned fd ignores flags.
> This means that any user can acquire a "read-write" fd for a pinned
> link with mode 0664 by invoking
On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 6:40 PM Alexei Starovoitov
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 09:32:58PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > I think it's better to start with new library for tc/xdp and have
> > > libbpf as a dependency on that new lib.
> > > For example
On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 9:11 AM Pedro Tammela wrote:
>
> The current way to provide a no-op flag to 'bpf_ringbuf_submit()',
> 'bpf_ringbuf_discard()' and 'bpf_ringbuf_output()' is to provide a '0'
> value.
>
> A '0' value might notify the consumer if it already caught up in processing,
> so let's
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 4:16 PM Alexei Starovoitov
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 3:54 PM Pedro Tammela wrote:
> >
> > BPF_CALL_2(bpf_ringbuf_submit, void *, sample, u64, flags)
> > {
> > + if (unlikely(flags & ~(BPF_RB_NO_WAKEUP | BPF_RB_FORCE_WAKEUP)))
> > + return
On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 9:12 AM Pedro Tammela wrote:
>
> The current code only checks flags in 'bpf_ringbuf_output()'.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pedro Tammela
> ---
> include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 8
> kernel/bpf/ringbuf.c | 13 +++--
> tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h |
On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 9:28 AM Song Liu wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 28, 2021, at 9:10 AM, Pedro Tammela wrote:
> >
> > 'bpf_ring_buffer__poll()' abstracts the polling method, so abstract the
> > constants that make the implementation don't wait or wait indefinetly
> > for data.
> >
> >
On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 11:11 AM Jisheng Zhang
wrote:
>
> From: Jisheng Zhang
>
> This is useful for cross compile process to point linker to the
> correct libelf, libcap, libz path.
Is this enough to make cross-compilation of selftests/bpf work? I
think there was a discussion another day about
On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 8:27 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 05:49:29AM IST, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > On 3/31/21 11:44 AM, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 02:55:47AM IST, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > > > Do we even need the _block variant?
On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 10:47 AM Alexei Starovoitov
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 12:38:06AM +0530, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 12:02:14AM IST, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 8:27 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
> > > wrote:
> > > > [...]
>
On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 6:34 AM Pedro Tammela wrote:
>
> Em qua., 31 de mar. de 2021 às 03:54, Andrii Nakryiko
> escreveu:
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 9:11 AM Pedro Tammela wrote:
> > >
> > > The current way to provide a no-op flag to 'bpf_ringbu
On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 6:29 AM Pedro Tammela wrote:
>
> Em qua., 31 de mar. de 2021 às 04:02, Andrii Nakryiko
> escreveu:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 4:16 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 3:54 PM Pedr
On Sun, Apr 4, 2021 at 2:53 AM Hengqi Chen wrote:
>
> Add missing ')' for KERNEL_VERSION macro.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hengqi Chen
> ---
The fix looks good, thank you. But your patch didn't make it into
bpf/netdev patchworks instance ([0]) most probably due to too long CC
list. Can you please
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 7:15 PM Alexei Starovoitov
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 05:30:03PM +0530, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> > This adds some basic tests for the low level bpf_tc_* API and its
> > bpf_program__attach_tc_* wrapper on top.
>
> *_block() apis from patch 3 and 4 are not
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 5:02 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
wrote:
>
> This adds functions that wrap the netlink API used for adding,
> manipulating, and removing filters and actions. These functions operate
> directly on the loaded prog's fd, and return a handle to the filter and
> action using an
On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 1:11 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 10:12:40AM IST, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > Is there some succinct but complete enough documentation/tutorial/etc
> > that I can reasonably read to understand kernel APIs provided by
On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 8:28 PM Alexei Starovoitov
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 07:38:42PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> >
> > See above. I don't know which hassle is libbpf for users today. You
> > were implying code size used for functionality users might n
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 1:43 PM Sultan Alsawaf wrote:
>
> From: Sultan Alsawaf
>
> We should be using the program fd here, not the perf event fd.
Why? Can you elaborate on what issue you ran into with the current code?
>
> Fixes: 63f2f5ee856ba ("libbpf: add ability to attach/detach BPF program
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 6:43 PM Sultan Alsawaf wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 06:33:01PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 6:22 PM Sultan Alsawaf
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 05:31:14PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrot
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 6:22 PM Sultan Alsawaf wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 05:31:14PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 1:43 PM Sultan Alsawaf
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Sultan Alsawaf
> > >
> > > We shou
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 5:45 AM Masanari Iida wrote:
>
> This patch fixes a spelling typo in do_hbm_test.sh
>
> Signed-off-by: Masanari Iida
> ---
Thanks, applied to bpf-next. For the future patches, please use [PATCH
bpf-next] subject prefix if you are sending patches against bpf-next
tree (of
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 9:36 PM Andrii Nakryiko
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 2:02 PM Florent Revest wrote:
> >
> > When initializing the __param array with a one liner, if all args are
> > const, the initial array value will be placed in the rodata section but
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 2:02 PM Florent Revest wrote:
>
> This type provides the guarantee that an argument is going to be a const
> pointer to somewhere in a read-only map value. It also checks that this
> pointer is followed by a NULL character before the end of the map value.
>
>
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 2:02 PM Florent Revest wrote:
>
> The implementation takes inspiration from the existing bpf_trace_printk
> helper but there are a few differences:
>
> To allow for a large number of format-specifiers, parameters are
> provided in an array, like in bpf_seq_printf.
>
>
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 2:02 PM Florent Revest wrote:
>
> When initializing the __param array with a one liner, if all args are
> const, the initial array value will be placed in the rodata section but
> because libbpf does not support relocation in the rodata section, any
> pointer in this array
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 2:02 PM Florent Revest wrote:
>
> This exercices most of the format specifiers when things go well.
typo: exercises
>
> Signed-off-by: Florent Revest
> ---
> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/snprintf.c | 71 +++
>
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 2:02 PM Florent Revest wrote:
>
> Similarly to BPF_SEQ_PRINTF, this macro turns variadic arguments into an
> array of u64, making it more natural to call the bpf_snprintf helper.
>
> Signed-off-by: Florent Revest
> ---
> tools/lib/bpf/bpf_tracing.h | 15 +++
>
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 8:59 AM Yonghong Song wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/10/21 3:48 AM, Florent Revest wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 6:16 AM Yonghong Song wrote:
> >> On 3/9/21 7:43 PM, Yonghong Song wrote:
> >>> On 3/9/21 5:54 PM, Florent Revest wrote:
> I noticed that initializing an array
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 12:12 PM Andrii Nakryiko
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 8:59 AM Yonghong Song wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 3/10/21 3:48 AM, Florent Revest wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 6:16 AM Yonghong Song wrote:
> > >> On 3/9
On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 9:37 AM Christophe Leroy
wrote:
>
> This series implements extended BPF on powerpc32. For the implementation
> details, see the patch before the last.
>
> The following operations are not implemented:
>
> case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_DIV | BPF_X: /* dst /= src */
>
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 2:01 PM Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>
> On 3/14/21 6:38 PM, Pedro Tammela wrote:
> > Linux headers might pull 'linux/stddef.h' which defines
> > '__always_inline' as the following:
> >
> > #ifndef __always_inline
> > #define __always_inline __inline__
> > #endif
> >
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 4:58 PM Florent Revest wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 2:03 AM Andrii Nakryiko
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 2:02 PM Florent Revest wrote:
> > > + } else if (arg_type == ARG_PTR_TO_CONST_STR) {
> > > + s
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 5:46 PM Florent Revest wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 1:35 AM Andrii Nakryiko
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 4:58 PM Florent Revest wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 2:03 AM Andrii Nakryiko
> > > wrote:
> > > > O
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 3:43 PM Florent Revest wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 5:36 AM Andrii Nakryiko
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 2:02 PM Florent Revest wrote:
> > > +#define ___bpf_build_param0(narg, x)
> > > +#define ___bpf_build_param
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 11:16 PM Song Liu wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 22, 2021, at 10:21 PM, Andrii Nakryiko
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 5:23 PM Song Liu wrote:
> >>
> >> BPF helpers bpf_task_storage_[get|delete] could hold
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 5:23 PM Song Liu wrote:
>
> BPF helpers bpf_task_storage_[get|delete] could hold two locks:
> bpf_local_storage_map_bucket->lock and bpf_local_storage->lock. Calling
> these helpers from fentry/fexit programs on functions in bpf_*_storage.c
> may cause deadlock on either
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 5:24 PM Song Liu wrote:
>
> Update the Makefile to prefer using $(O)/mvlinux, $(KBUILD_OUTPUT)/vmlinux
> (for selftests) or ../../../vmlinux. These two files should have latest
> definitions for vmlinux.h.
>
> Signed-off-by: Song Liu
> ---
Acke
On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 1:11 AM Jiapeng Chong
wrote:
>
> Fix the following coccicheck warnings:
>
> ./tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c:1487:43-48: WARNING: conversion to bool not
> needed here.
>
> Reported-by: Abaci Robot
> Signed-off-by: Jiapeng Chong
> ---
I think this came up before already. I did
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 12:30 PM Pedro Tammela wrote:
>
> Em qua., 7 de abr. de 2021 às 15:31, Andrii Nakryiko
> escreveu:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 11:55 AM Pedro Tammela wrote:
> > >
> > > This macro was refactored out of the bpf selftests.
> &g
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 11:55 AM Pedro Tammela wrote:
>
> This macro was refactored out of the bpf selftests.
>
> Since percpu values are rounded up to '8' in the kernel, a careless
> user in userspace might encounter unexpected values when parsing the
> output of the batched operations.
I wonder
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 6:08 PM syzbot
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> syzbot found the following issue on:
>
> HEAD commit:0f4498ce Merge tag 'for-5.12/dm-fixes-2' of git://git.kern..
> git tree: upstream
> console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=1250e126d0
> kernel config:
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 11:43 AM Joe Stringer wrote:
>
> Hi Pedro,
>
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 11:58 AM Pedro Tammela wrote:
> >
> > In 'bpf_ringbuf_reserve()' we require the flag to '0' at the moment.
> >
> > For 'bpf_ringbuf_{discard,submit,output}' a flag of '0' might send a
> > notification to
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 9:06 AM Florent Revest wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 11:55 PM Andrii Nakryiko
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 7:23 PM Florent Revest wrote:
> > > The implementation takes inspiration from the existing bpf_trace_printk
> > > helpe
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 1:10 PM Pedro Tammela wrote:
>
> Em qua., 7 de abr. de 2021 às 16:58, Andrii Nakryiko
> escreveu:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 11:43 AM Joe Stringer wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Pedro,
> > >
> >
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 8:35 AM Florent Revest wrote:
>
> [Sorry for the late replies, I'm just back from a long easter break :)]
>
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 11:51 PM Andrii Nakryiko
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 2:53 PM Andrii Nakryiko
> > wrote:
> >
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 4:24 PM Rustam Kovhaev wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 09:43:00PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 9:39 PM Rustam Kovhaev wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 08:05:42PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 5:21 PM
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 12:25 PM Pedro Tammela wrote:
>
> In 'bpf_ringbuf_reserve()' we require the flag to '0' at the moment.
>
> For 'bpf_ringbuf_{discard,submit,output}' a flag of '0' might send a
> notification to the process if needed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pedro Tammela
> ---
Great, thanks!
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 11:58 AM Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 05:56:32PM +0200, Florent Revest wrote:
> > It is just missing a ';'. This macro is not used by any test yet.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Florent Revest
> Fixes: 22ba36351631 ("selftests/bpf: Move and extend
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 11:54 AM Florent Revest wrote:
>
> Two helpers (trace_printk and seq_printf) have very similar
> implementations of format string parsing and a third one is coming
> (snprintf). To avoid code duplication and make the code easier to
> maintain, this moves the operations
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 2:33 AM Florent Revest wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 2:38 AM Andrii Nakryiko
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 11:54 AM Florent Revest wrote:
> > > +static int try_get_fmt_tmp_buf(char **tmp_buf)
> > > +{
> >
string length
> arg.
>
> Because the format-string is known at verification time, we also do
> a first pass of format string validation in the verifier logic. This
> makes debugging easier.
>
> Signed-off-by: Florent Revest
> ---
LGTM.
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko
>
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 11:54 AM Florent Revest wrote:
>
> The "positive" part tests all format specifiers when things go well.
>
> The "negative" part makes sure that incorrect format strings fail at
> load time.
>
> Signed-off-by: Florent Revest
> ---
> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/snprintf.c
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 8:57 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>
> Andrii Nakryiko writes:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 3:51 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Andrii Nakryiko writes:
> >>
> >> > On Wed, A
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 3:10 PM Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>
> On 4/15/21 1:58 AM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 4:32 PM Daniel Borkmann
> > wrote:
> >> On 4/15/21 1:19 AM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 3:51
f/prog_tests/snprintf.c
> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_snprintf.c
> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_snprintf_single.c
>
> --
> 2.31.1.368.gbe11c130af-goog
>
Looks great, thank you!
For the series:
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 5:18 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
wrote:
>
> This adds some basic tests for the low level bpf_tc_cls_* API.
>
> Reviewed-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
> Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
> ---
> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_tc_bpf.c| 112 ++
>
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 9:38 AM Randy Dunlap wrote:
>
> On 4/11/21 8:48 PM, a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
> > The mm-of-the-moment snapshot 2021-04-11-20-47 has been uploaded to
> >
> >https://www.ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/
> >
> > mmotm-readme.txt says
> >
> > README for mm-of-the-moment:
>
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 8:38 AM Florent Revest wrote:
>
> The implementation takes inspiration from the existing bpf_trace_printk
> helper but there are a few differences:
>
> To allow for a large number of format-specifiers, parameters are
> provided in an array, like in bpf_seq_printf.
>
>
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 8:38 AM Florent Revest wrote:
>
> This exercises most of the format specifiers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Florent Revest
> Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko
> ---
As I mentioned on another patch, we probably need negative tests even
more than positive ones.
I thin
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 8:38 AM Florent Revest wrote:
>
> Two helpers (trace_printk and seq_printf) have very similar
> implementations of format string parsing and a third one is coming
> (snprintf). To avoid code duplication and make the code easier to
> maintain, this moves the operations
t;
> Signed-off-by: Florent Revest
> ---
LGTM.
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko
> include/linux/bpf.h | 1 +
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 41 +
> 2 files changed, 42 insertions(+)
>
[...]
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 8:38 AM Florent Revest wrote:
>
> Similarly to BPF_SEQ_PRINTF, this macro turns variadic arguments into an
> array of u64, making it more natural to call the bpf_snprintf helper.
>
> Signed-off-by: Florent Revest
> ---
Nice!
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko
r in this array will stay NULL.
>
> Fixes: c09add2fbc5a ("tools/libbpf: Add bpf_iter support")
> Signed-off-by: Florent Revest
> ---
Looks good!
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko
> tools/lib/bpf/bpf_tracing.h | 40 +++--
> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
[...]
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 3:06 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>
> Andrii Nakryiko writes:
>
> > On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 10:47 AM Alexei Starovoitov
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 12:38:06AM +0530, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> >>
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 8:45 AM Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
>
> This patch adds a test for BPF_SK_REUSEPORT_SELECT_OR_MIGRATE and
> removes 'static' from settimeo() in network_helpers.c.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kuniyuki Iwashima
> ---
Almost everything in prog_tests/migrate_reuseport.c should be
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 2:46 AM Florent Revest wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 1:16 AM Andrii Nakryiko
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 8:38 AM Florent Revest wrote:
> > > +static int check_bpf_snprintf_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
> > > +
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 11:30 AM Florent Revest wrote:
>
> Hey Geert! :)
>
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 8:02 PM Geert Uytterhoeven
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:41 AM Andrii Nakryiko
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 8:38 AM Florent Reves
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 3:51 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>
> Andrii Nakryiko writes:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 3:58 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Andrii Nakryiko writes:
> >>
> >> > On Tue,
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 4:32 PM Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>
> On 4/15/21 1:19 AM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 3:51 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
> > wrote:
> >> Andrii Nakryiko writes:
> >>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 3:58 AM Toke Høiland
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 3:58 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>
> Andrii Nakryiko writes:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 3:06 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Andrii Nakryiko writes:
> >>
> >> > On S
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 2:21 AM Florent Revest wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 1:21 AM Andrii Nakryiko
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 8:38 AM Florent Revest wrote:
> > >
> > > This exercises most of the format specifiers.
> > >
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 8:25 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
wrote:
>
> Em Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 06:33:43AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> > On February 5, 2021 4:39:47 AM GMT-03:00, Andrii Nakryiko
> > wrote:
> > >On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 8:34 PM Arnaldo Car
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 3:55 PM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
wrote:
>
> Em Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 02:11:44PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko escreveu:
> > On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 8:25 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Em Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 06:33:
On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 7:00 AM Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 08:01:34 +0200
> Artem Savkov wrote:
>
> > > But looking at [0] and briefly reading some of the discussions you,
> > > Steven, had. I'm just wondering if it would be best to avoid
> > > increasing struct trace_entry
to
kallsyms_on_each_match_symbol() to perform a proper counting.
Cc: Francis Laniel
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu
Cc: Steven Rostedt
Fixes: b022f0c7e404 ("tracing/kprobes: Return EADDRNOTAVAIL when func matches
several symbols")
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko
---
kernel/trace/trace_kpr
-
> kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c | 112
> ++-
> 1 file changed, 68 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
>
LGTM.
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c b/kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c
> index e834f149695b..90cf2219adb4 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/trace_kpro
On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 6:53 AM Artem Savkov wrote:
>
> linux-rt-devel tree contains a patch that adds an extra member to struct
can you please point to the patch itself that makes that change?
> trace_entry. This causes the offset of args field in struct
> trace_event_raw_sys_enter be different
On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 6:43 AM Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 13:45:50 +0200
> Artem Savkov wrote:
>
> > linux-rt-devel tree contains a patch (b1773eac3f29c ("sched: Add support
> > for lazy preemption")) that adds an extra member to struct trace_entry.
> > This causes the offset
On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 6:00 PM Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 12:09:09 -0700
> Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> > Take into account CONFIG_FTRACE_VALIDATE_RCU_IS_WATCHING when validating
> > that RCU is watching when trying to setup rethooko on a function en
On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 3:48 PM Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 15:03:28 -0700
> Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> > Take into account CONFIG_FTRACE_VALIDATE_RCU_IS_WATCHING when validating
> > that RCU is watching when trying to setup rethooko on a function ent
On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 1:25 AM Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 11:33:00AM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> > #include
> > #include
> > @@ -308,6 +309,88 @@ static int uprobe_init_insn(struct arch_uprobe
> > *auprobe, struct insn *insn, bool
> > }
> >
> > #ifdef
401 - 500 of 591 matches
Mail list logo
