Em Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 10:28:11AM -0800, Yonghong Song escreveu:
> The compiler did "40: (bf) r1 = r0" and then uses "r1" for branch
> comparison, the original "r0" is left with complete unknown integer value
> and later used to calculate the buffer size "55: (bf) r5 = r0"
> where "r5" could be ne
On 1/22/18 7:06 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
Em Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 10:42:22AM -0800, Gianluca Borello escreveu:
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
wrote:
yeah sorry about this hack. Gianluca reported this issue as well.
Yonghong fixed it for bpf_probe_read only. We
Em Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 10:42:22AM -0800, Gianluca Borello escreveu:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
> wrote:
> >
> > yeah sorry about this hack. Gianluca reported this issue as well.
> > Yonghong fixed it for bpf_probe_read only. We will extend
> > the fix to bpf_probe_read_
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
wrote:
>
> yeah sorry about this hack. Gianluca reported this issue as well.
> Yonghong fixed it for bpf_probe_read only. We will extend
> the fix to bpf_probe_read_str() and bpf_perf_event_output() asap.
> The above workaround gets too much into
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 11:29:05AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 02:58:24PM -0800, Yonghong Song escreveu:
> > On 11/14/17 12:25 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > > Yeah, I know, that's what I mentioned earlier in this thread to resolve
> > > it,
> > > but do we rea
Em Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 02:58:24PM -0800, Yonghong Song escreveu:
> On 11/14/17 12:25 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > Yeah, I know, that's what I mentioned earlier in this thread to resolve it,
> > but do we really want to add this hack everywhere? :( Potentially any
> > function
> > having ARG_CON
On 11/20/17 5:31 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
Em Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 09:25:17PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann escreveu:
On 11/14/2017 07:15 PM, Yonghong Song wrote:
On 11/14/17 6:19 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
On 11/14/2017 02:42 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
Em Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 0
Em Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 09:25:17PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann escreveu:
> On 11/14/2017 07:15 PM, Yonghong Song wrote:
> > On 11/14/17 6:19 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> >> On 11/14/2017 02:42 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> >>> Em Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 02:09:34PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann escreveu:
>
On 11/14/17 12:25 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
On 11/14/2017 07:15 PM, Yonghong Song wrote:
On 11/14/17 6:19 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
On 11/14/2017 02:42 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
Em Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 02:09:34PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann escreveu:
On 11/14/2017 01:58 PM, Arnaldo C
On 11/14/2017 07:15 PM, Yonghong Song wrote:
> On 11/14/17 6:19 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> On 11/14/2017 02:42 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>>> Em Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 02:09:34PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann escreveu:
On 11/14/2017 01:58 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Tue, No
On 11/14/17 6:19 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
On 11/14/2017 02:42 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
Em Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 02:09:34PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann escreveu:
On 11/14/2017 01:58 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
Em Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 01:09:39AM +0100, Daniel Borkmann escreveu:
Em Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 03:19:51PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann escreveu:
> On 11/14/2017 02:42 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 02:09:34PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann escreveu:
> >> On 11/14/2017 01:58 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> >> Currently having a version compiled
On 11/14/2017 02:42 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 02:09:34PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann escreveu:
>> On 11/14/2017 01:58 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>>> Em Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 01:09:39AM +0100, Daniel Borkmann escreveu:
On 11/13/2017 04:08 PM, Arnaldo Carva
Em Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 02:09:34PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann escreveu:
> On 11/14/2017 01:58 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 01:09:39AM +0100, Daniel Borkmann escreveu:
> >> On 11/13/2017 04:08 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> >>> libbpf: -- BEGIN DUMP LOG ---
> >>
On 11/14/2017 01:58 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 01:09:39AM +0100, Daniel Borkmann escreveu:
>> On 11/13/2017 04:08 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>>> libbpf: -- BEGIN DUMP LOG ---
>>> libbpf:
>>> 0: (79) r3 = *(u64 *)(r1 +104)
>>> 1: (b7) r2 = 0
>>> 2: (bf) r
Em Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 01:09:39AM +0100, Daniel Borkmann escreveu:
> On 11/13/2017 04:08 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > libbpf: -- BEGIN DUMP LOG ---
> > libbpf:
> > 0: (79) r3 = *(u64 *)(r1 +104)
> > 1: (b7) r2 = 0
> > 2: (bf) r6 = r1
> > 3: (bf) r1 = r10
> > 4: (07) r1 += -128
> > 5: (
On 11/13/2017 04:08 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 03:56:14PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann escreveu:
>> On 11/13/2017 03:30 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> In a5e8c07059d0 ("bpf: add bpf_probe_read_str helper") you
>>> state:
>>>
>>>"This is subo
Em Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 03:56:14PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann escreveu:
> On 11/13/2017 03:30 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > In a5e8c07059d0 ("bpf: add bpf_probe_read_str helper") you
> > state:
> >
> >"This is suboptimal because the size of the string needs to be estimat
On 11/13/2017 03:30 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In a5e8c07059d0 ("bpf: add bpf_probe_read_str helper") you
> state:
>
>"This is suboptimal because the size of the string needs to be estimated
> at compile time, causing more memory to be copied than often necessary,
Hi,
In a5e8c07059d0 ("bpf: add bpf_probe_read_str helper") you
state:
"This is suboptimal because the size of the string needs to be estimated
at compile time, causing more memory to be copied than often necessary,
and can become more problematic if further processing on buf is
20 matches
Mail list logo
