On 02/10/2018 06:08 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 2/9/18 8:54 AM, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
>> Naveen N. Rao wrote:
>>> Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On 2/8/18 4:03 AM, Sandipan Das wrote:
> The imm field of a bpf_insn is a signed 32-bit integer. For
> JIT-ed bpf-to-bpf function calls,
On 2/9/18 8:54 AM, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
Naveen N. Rao wrote:
Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On 2/8/18 4:03 AM, Sandipan Das wrote:
The imm field of a bpf_insn is a signed 32-bit integer. For
JIT-ed bpf-to-bpf function calls, it stores the offset from
__bpf_call_base to the start of the callee
Naveen N. Rao wrote:
Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On 2/8/18 4:03 AM, Sandipan Das wrote:
The imm field of a bpf_insn is a signed 32-bit integer. For
JIT-ed bpf-to-bpf function calls, it stores the offset from
__bpf_call_base to the start of the callee function.
For some architectures, such as
Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On 2/8/18 4:03 AM, Sandipan Das wrote:
The imm field of a bpf_insn is a signed 32-bit integer. For
JIT-ed bpf-to-bpf function calls, it stores the offset from
__bpf_call_base to the start of the callee function.
For some architectures, such as powerpc64, it was found
On 2/8/18 4:03 AM, Sandipan Das wrote:
The imm field of a bpf_insn is a signed 32-bit integer. For
JIT-ed bpf-to-bpf function calls, it stores the offset from
__bpf_call_base to the start of the callee function.
For some architectures, such as powerpc64, it was found that
this offset may be as
The imm field of a bpf_insn is a signed 32-bit integer. For
JIT-ed bpf-to-bpf function calls, it stores the offset from
__bpf_call_base to the start of the callee function.
For some architectures, such as powerpc64, it was found that
this offset may be as large as 64 bits because of which this
