Em Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 09:27:52PM +, Yonghong Song escreveu:
>
>
> On 11/2/18 8:42 AM, Edward Cree wrote:
> > On 02/11/18 15:02, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> >> Yeah, didn't work as well:
> >
> >> And the -vv in 'perf trace' didn't seem to map to further details in the
> >> output of
Em Sat, Nov 03, 2018 at 08:29:34AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> PLEASE ATTACH THE FOLLOWING FILES TO THE BUG REPORT:
> Preprocessed source(s) and associated run script(s) are located at:
> clang-7: note: diagnostic msg: /tmp/augmented_raw_syscalls-7444d9.c
> clang-7: note:
Em Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 03:42:49PM +, Edward Cree escreveu:
> On 02/11/18 15:02, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Yeah, didn't work as well:
>
> > And the -vv in 'perf trace' didn't seem to map to further details in the
> > output of the verifier debug:
> Yeah for log_level 2 you probably
On 11/2/18 8:42 AM, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 02/11/18 15:02, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>> Yeah, didn't work as well:
>
>> And the -vv in 'perf trace' didn't seem to map to further details in the
>> output of the verifier debug:
> Yeah for log_level 2 you probably need to make source-level
On 02/11/18 15:02, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Yeah, didn't work as well:
> And the -vv in 'perf trace' didn't seem to map to further details in the
> output of the verifier debug:
Yeah for log_level 2 you probably need to make source-level changes to either
perf or libbpf (I think the
Em Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 08:05:07PM +, Edward Cree escreveu:
> On 01/11/18 18:52, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > R0=inv(id=0) R1=inv6 R2=inv6 R3=inv(id=0) R6=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0)
> > R7=inv64 R10=fp0,call_-1
> > 15: (b7) r2 = 0
> > 16: (63) *(u32 *)(r10 -260) = r2
> > 17: (67) r1 <<= 32
On 01/11/18 18:52, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> R0=inv(id=0) R1=inv6 R2=inv6 R3=inv(id=0) R6=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R7=inv64
> R10=fp0,call_-1
> 15: (b7) r2 = 0
> 16: (63) *(u32 *)(r10 -260) = r2
> 17: (67) r1 <<= 32
> 18: (77) r1 >>= 32
> 19: (67) r1 <<= 3
> 20: (bf) r2 = r6
> 21: (0f) r2
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 16:13:10 -0300
> Nope... this is inside an if:
>
> if (filename_arg <= 5) {
> augmented_args.filename.reserved = 0;
> augmented_args.filename.size =
> probe_read_str(_args.filename.value,
>
Em Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 12:10:39PM -0700, David Miller escreveu:
> From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
> Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 15:52:17 -0300
>
> > 50 unsigned int filename_arg = 6;
> ...
> > --- /wb/augmented_raw_syscalls.c.old2018-11-01 15:43:55.000394234
> > -0300
> >
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 15:52:17 -0300
> 50unsigned int filename_arg = 6;
...
> --- /wb/augmented_raw_syscalls.c.old 2018-11-01 15:43:55.000394234 -0300
> +++ /wb/augmented_raw_syscalls.c 2018-11-01 15:44:15.102367838 -0300
> @@ -67,7 +67,7
tl;dr: I seem to be trying to get past clang optimizations that get the
verifier to accept my proggie.
Hi,
So I'm moving to use raw_syscalls:sys_exit to collect pointer
contents, using maps to tell the bpf program what to copy, how many
bytes, filters, etc.
I'm at the
11 matches
Mail list logo
