On 02/01/19 05:25, Yonghong Song wrote: > On 12/31/18 5:37 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >> +static int adjust_subprog_starts_after_remove(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, >> + u32 off, u32 cnt) Given how much trouble this seems to be causing, is it time for me to bring back my patches to replace subprog_starts with a subprogno field in struct bpf_insn_aux_data?
Something similar could maybe be done with line_info, but only if the 'dead' line infos are left in prog->aux->linfo. Then each insn would store a linfo_no, and on output you'd only show the line info if it was different to the linfo_no of the previous insn. I haven't looked deeply enough into line info implementation to know if there's anything that would break. -Ed
