powerpc arch plus instruction check stolen from ppc_function_entry
> function pointed out and explained by Michael and Naveen.
>
> Cc: Michael Ellerman
> Cc: Naveen N. Rao
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa
> ---
> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/attach_probe.c | 40 +
On 2021/03/04 04:55PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 11:46:27AM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > "Naveen N. Rao" writes:
> > > On 2021/03/02 11:35AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 02:58:53PM -0800, Yonghong Song wrote:
>
On 2021/03/02 09:19AM, Yonghong Song wrote:
>
>
> On 3/2/21 3:14 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 04:34:24PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 11:11 AM Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > >
> > > > When testing uprobes we the test gets GEP (Global Entry Point)
> > >
On 2021/03/02 11:35AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 02:58:53PM -0800, Yonghong Song wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 3/1/21 11:04 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > When testing uprobes we the test gets GEP (Global Entry Point)
> > > address from kallsyms, but then the function is called locally
> > >
Daniel Borkmann wrote:
On 9/2/20 10:58 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 1:43 AM Naveen N. Rao
wrote:
Ubuntu mainline builds for ppc64le are failing with the below error (*):
CALL/home/kernel/COD/linux/scripts/atomic/check-atomics.sh
DESCEND bpf/resolve_btfids
build failure.
The specific header include path doesn't seem necessary for a libbpf
build. Hence, remove the same.
(*) https://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/v5.9-rc3/ppc64el/log
Reported-by: Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao
---
This is a simpler fix that seems to
-Clause. This patch updates licensing of those two files.
Quite late, but FWIW:
Acked-by: Naveen N. Rao
- Naveen
branches at once.
Reported-by: Michael Ellerman
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao
---
kernel/bpf/core.c | 232 +-
1 file changed, 168 insertions(+), 64 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
index 33fb292f2e30..82338b5cd98d 100644
--- a
Jiong Wang wrote:
On 15 Apr 2019, at 19:21, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
Jiong Wang wrote:
It will be great if you could test the latest set on PowerPC to see if
there is any regression for example for those under test_progs and
test_verifier.
With test_bpf, I am seeing a few failures with this
Jiong Wang wrote:
It will be great if you could test the latest set on PowerPC to see if
there is any regression for example for those under test_progs and
test_verifier.
With test_bpf, I am seeing a few failures with this patchset.
And it will be even greater if you also use latest llvm sn
Naveen N. Rao wrote:
It is then for all back-ends to decide how to use such information to
eliminate unnecessary zero extension code-gen during JIT compilation.
One approach is:
1. Verifier insert explicit zero extension for those instructions that
need zero extension.
2. All JIT back
Hi Jiong,
Jiong Wang wrote:
After previous patches, verifier has marked those instructions that really
need zero extension on dst_reg.
Thanks for implementing this -- this is very helpful on architectures
without sub-register instructions, especially in comparison with legacy
BPF, since the
Daniel Borkmann wrote:
On 05/18/2018 02:50 PM, Sandipan Das wrote:
This adds support for bpf-to-bpf function calls in the powerpc64
JIT compiler. The JIT compiler converts the bpf call instructions
to native branch instructions. After a round of the usual passes,
the start addresses of the JITed
Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On 3/1/18 12:51 AM, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
Daniel Borkmann wrote:
Worst case if there's nothing better, potentially what one could do in
bpf_prog_get_info_by_fd() is to dump an array of full addresses and
have the imm part as the index pointing to one of them,
Daniel Borkmann wrote:
On 02/27/2018 01:13 PM, Sandipan Das wrote:
With this patch, it will look like this:
0: (85) call pc+2#bpf_prog_8f85936f29a7790a+3
(Note the +2 is the insn->off already.)
1: (b7) r0 = 1
2: (95) exit
3: (b7) r0 = 2
4: (95) exit
where 8f85936f29a7790a is
Michael Ellerman wrote:
"Naveen N. Rao" writes:
Daniel Borkmann wrote:
On 02/15/2018 05:25 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
On 02/13/2018 05:05 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 o
Daniel Borkmann wrote:
On 02/15/2018 05:25 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
On 02/13/2018 05:05 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 som
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 t
in 32 bit alu
Daniel Borkmann wrote:
Very minor optimization; saves 1 byte per program in x86_64
JIT in cBPF prologue.
... but increases program size by 4 bytes on ppc64 :(
In general, this is an area I've been wanting to spend some time on.
Powerpc doesn't have 32-bit sub-registers, so we n
Daniel Borkmann wrote:
Since we've changed div/mod exception handling for src_reg in
eBPF verifier itself, remove the leftovers from ppc64 JIT.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann
Cc: Naveen N. Rao
---
arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 8
1 file changed, 8 deletions(-)
Probabl
Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On 11/7/17 12:55 AM, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
I thought such struct shouldn't change layout.
If it is we need to fix include/linux/compiler-clang.h to do that
anon struct as well.
We considered that, but it looked to be very dependent on the version of
gcc used to
Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On 11/5/17 2:31 AM, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
Hi Alexei,
Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On 11/3/17 3:58 PM, Sandipan Das wrote:
For added security, the layout of some structures can be
randomized by enabling CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT. One
such structure is task_struct. To
Hi Alexei,
Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On 11/3/17 3:58 PM, Sandipan Das wrote:
For added security, the layout of some structures can be
randomized by enabling CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT. One
such structure is task_struct. To build BPF programs, we
use Clang which does not support this feature.
f-by: Sandipan Das
> ---
LGTM, thanks!
Reviewed-by: Naveen N. Rao
Michael,
Seeing as this is powerpc specific, can you please take this through
your tree?
Thanks,
Naveen
> arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit64.h | 7 ---
> arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 16 ++--
> 2 file
On 2017/01/24 04:13PM, David Laight wrote:
> From: 'Naveen N. Rao'
> > Sent: 23 January 2017 19:22
> > On 2017/01/15 09:00AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2017-01-13 at 23:22 +0530, 'Naveen N. Rao' wrote:
> > > > > That
On 2017/01/15 09:00AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-01-13 at 23:22 +0530, 'Naveen N. Rao' wrote:
> > > That rather depends on whether the processor has a store to load forwarder
> > > that will satisfy the read from the store buffer.
> > > I
Hi David,
On 2017/01/16 01:38PM, David Miller wrote:
>
> I'm assuming these patches will go via the powerpc tree.
>
> If you want them to go into net-next, I kindly ask that you always
> explicitly say so, and furthermore always submit a patch series with
> a proper "[PATCH 0/N] ..." header post
On 2017/01/13 05:17PM, David Laight wrote:
> From: Naveen N. Rao
> > Sent: 13 January 2017 17:10
> > Generate instructions to perform the endian conversion using registers,
> > rather than generating two memory accesses.
> >
> > The "way easier and faster
From: Daniel Borkmann
We have a check earlier to ensure we don't proceed if image is NULL. As
such, the redundant check can be removed.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann
[Added similar changes for classic BPF JIT]
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao
---
arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
Generate instructions to perform the endian conversion using registers,
rather than generating two memory accesses.
The "way easier and faster" comment was obviously for the author, not
the processor.
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao
---
arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_com
h the entire allocated buffer rather than just the part containing
the actual program. We already flush the buffer from start to the end of
the BPF program. Extend this to include the illegal instructions after
the BPF program.
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao
---
arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.
On 2016/09/26 11:00AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 09/26/2016 10:56 AM, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> > On 2016/09/24 03:30AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 12:33:54AM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > > > On 09/23/2016 10:35 PM, Naveen N. Rao wro
On 2016/09/24 03:30AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 12:33:54AM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > On 09/23/2016 10:35 PM, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> > >Tail calls allow JIT'ed eBPF programs to call into other JIT'ed eBPF
> > >programs. Th
These samples fail to compile as 'struct flow_keys' conflicts with
definition in net/flow_dissector.h. Fix the same by renaming the
structure used in the sample.
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao
---
samples/bpf/sockex2_kern.c | 10 +-
samples/bpf/sockex3_kern.c | 8
s
seccomp_phase1() does not exist anymore. Instead, update sample to use
__seccomp_filter(). While at it, set max locked memory to unlimited.
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao
---
I am not completely sure if __seccomp_filter is the right place to hook
in. This works for me though. Please review
2,r2,39131
6c: xoris r2,r2,48399
70: rotlwi r2,r2,0
74: mr r8,r2
78: rotlwi r8,r8,0
7c: ld r27,-40(r1)
80: ld r28,-32(r1)
84: mr r3,r8
88: blr
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao
---
arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit64.h | 9 +
arch/p
t don't do tail
calls themselves, the first two instructions are NOPs.
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao
---
arch/powerpc/include/asm/ppc-opcode.h | 2 +
arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit.h| 2 +
arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit64.h | 1 +
arch/powerpc/net/bpf_ji
While at it, ensure that the location of the local save area is
consistent whether or not we setup our own stackframe. This property is
utilised in the next patch that adds support for tail calls.
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao
---
arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit64.h | 16 +---
arch/powerpc/net
vid S. Miller"
Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
Cc: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao
---
arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit.h | 121 +-
arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit32.h| 139
Cc: "David S. Miller"
Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
Cc: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao
---
arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit.h | 17 +++--
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/net/b
4
[2] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.ppc.embedded/96514
Naveen N. Rao (7):
ppc bpf/jit: Disable classic BPF JIT on ppc64le
ppc: bpf/jit: Fix/enhance 32-bit Load Immediate implementation
ppc: bpf/jit: Optimize 64-bit Immediate loads
ppc: bpf/jit: Introduce rotate immediate in
ahalli
Cc: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao
---
arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit.h | 13 +++--
arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 8
2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit.h b/arch/p
s Kirjanov
Cc: Michael Ellerman
Cc: Paul Mackerras
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov
Cc: Daniel Borkmann
Cc: "David S. Miller"
Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
Cc: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao
---
arch/powerpc/include/asm/ppc-op
"David S. Miller"
Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
Cc: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao
---
arch/powerpc/Kconfig | 3 +-
arch/powerpc/include/asm/asm-compat.h | 2 +
arch/powerpc/include/asm/ppc-opcode.h | 2
: Alexei Starovoitov
Cc: Daniel Borkmann
Cc: "David S. Miller"
Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
Cc: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo
Reported-by: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao
---
arch/powerpc/Kconfig | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
di
Cc: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao
---
arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit.h | 13 ++---
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit.h b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit.h
index 889fd19..a9882db 100644
On 2016/06/22 12:42PM, Naveen N Rao wrote:
> On 2016/06/21 11:47AM, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 09:15:48PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2016-06-21 at 14:28 +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> > > > On 2016/06/20 03:56PM,
On 2016/06/22 08:37PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-06-07 at 19:02 +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
>
> > PPC64 eBPF JIT compiler.
> >
> > Enable with:
> > echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable
> > or
> > echo 2 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_
On 2016/06/21 11:47AM, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 09:15:48PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-06-21 at 14:28 +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> > > On 2016/06/20 03:56PM, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> > > > On S
On 2016/06/21 09:04PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-06-21 at 12:28 +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> > On 2016/06/21 09:38AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2016-06-19 at 23:06 +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> > > >
> > > > #inc
On 2016/06/20 03:56PM, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:19:14PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> > On 2016/06/17 10:00AM, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, Michael and Naveen.
> > >
> > > I noticed i
On 2016/06/21 09:38AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-06-19 at 23:06 +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> > On 2016/06/17 10:53PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2016-07-06 at 13:32:23 UTC, "Naveen N. Rao" wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/arch/powe
On 2016/06/17 10:00AM, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:53:21PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-07-06 at 13:32:23 UTC, "Naveen N. Rao" wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> > > b/arch/p
On 2016/06/17 10:53PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-07-06 at 13:32:23 UTC, "Naveen N. Rao" wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> > b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000..954ff53
> &g
On 2016/06/10 10:47PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Naveen N. Rao"
> Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 19:02:17 +0530
>
> > Please note that patch [2] is a pre-requisite for this patchset, and is
> > not yet upstream.
> ...
> > [1] http://thread.gmane.org
On 2016/06/08 10:19PM, Nilay Vaish wrote:
> Naveen, can you point out where in the patch you update the variable:
> idx, a member of codegen_contex structure? Somehow I am unable to
> figure it out. I can only see that we set it to 0 in the
> bpf_int_jit_compile function. Since all your test cas
On 2016/06/07 03:56PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 07:02:23PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> > PPC64 eBPF JIT compiler.
> >
> > Enable with:
> > echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable
> > or
> > echo 2 > /proc/sys/ne
s Kirjanov
Cc: Michael Ellerman
Cc: Paul Mackerras
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov
Cc: Daniel Borkmann
Cc: "David S. Miller"
Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao
---
arch/powerpc/include/asm/ppc-opcode.h | 2 ++
arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit.h| 20 +
li
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao
---
arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit.h | 13 +++--
arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 8
2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit.h b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit.h
index 95d0e38..9041d3f 100644
--- a/arch/p
t for BPF constant blinding
Please note that patch [2] is a pre-requisite for this patchset, and is
not yet upstream.
- Naveen
[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/2188694
[2] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.ppc.embedded/96514
Naveen N. Rao (6):
ppc: bpf/jit: Fix/enhance 3
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao
---
arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit.h | 13 ++---
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit.h b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit.h
index 889fd19..a9882db 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit.h
vid S. Miller"
Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao
---
arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit.h | 121 +-
arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit32.h| 139
arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_asm.S | 2 +-
arch/powerpc/net/bpf_
"David S. Miller"
Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao
---
arch/powerpc/Kconfig | 3 +-
arch/powerpc/include/asm/asm-compat.h | 2 +
arch/powerpc/include/asm/ppc-opcode.h | 20 +-
arch/powerpc/net/Makefile | 4 +
arch/powerpc
Cc: "David S. Miller"
Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao
---
arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit.h | 17 +++--
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit.h b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit.h
index a9882db..4c1e055 10
On 2016/04/28 04:40PM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 18:51:33 +0530
> "Naveen N. Rao" wrote:
>
> > > Add this features back. Note that it is possible to redefine the LLC
> > > on the make command like:
> > >
> &g
. one
> need to call make like:
>
> make samples/bpf/
>
> Do notice the "/" slash after the directory name.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer
Acked-by: Naveen N. Rao
> ---
> samples/bpf/README.rst | 64
> +++
On 2016/04/28 02:20PM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> It is practical to be-able-to redefine the location of the LLVM
> command 'llc', because not all distros have a LLVM version with bpf
> target support. Thus, it is sometimes required to compile LLVM from
> source, and sometimes it is not desir
On 2016/04/27 11:16AM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 14:05:22 +0530
> "Naveen N. Rao" wrote:
>
> > On 2016/04/27 09:30AM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> > > Getting started with using examples in samples/bpf/ is not
> > > strai
Dangaard Brouer
> Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov
> ---
> samples/bpf/Makefile | 18 ++
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
Acked-by: Naveen N. Rao
>
> diff --git a/samples/bpf/Makefile b/samples/bpf/Makefile
> index 5bae9536f100..45859c99f573 100644
&
On 2016/04/27 09:30AM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> Getting started with using examples in samples/bpf/ is not
> straightforward. There are several dependencies, and specific
> versions of these dependencies.
>
> Just compiling the example tool is also slightly obscure, e.g. one
> need to call
On 2016/04/27 09:30AM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> It is practical to be-able-to redefine the location of the LLVM
> command 'llc', because not all distros have a LLVM version with bpf
> target support. Thus, it is sometimes required to compile LLVM from
> source, and sometimes it is not desir
On 2016/04/05 09:28AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 4/5/16 3:02 AM, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> >Some of these tests proved useful with the powerpc eBPF JIT port due to
> >sign-extended 16-bit immediate loads. Though some of these aspects get
> >covered in other tests, it is be
On 2016/04/05 09:20AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 4/5/16 3:02 AM, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> >Unsigned Jump-if-Greater-Than.
> >
> >Cc: Alexei Starovoitov
> >Cc: Daniel Borkmann
> >Cc: "David S. Miller"
> >Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
> >
BPF_ALU32 and BPF_ALU64 tests for adding two 32-bit values that results in
32-bit overflow.
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov
Cc: Daniel Borkmann
Cc: "David S. Miller"
Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
Cc: Michael Ellerman
Cc: Paul Mackerras
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao
---
lib/test_
: "David S. Miller"
Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
Cc: Michael Ellerman
Cc: Paul Mackerras
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao
---
lib/test_bpf.c | 128 +
1 file changed, 128 insertions(+)
diff --git a/lib/test_bpf.c b/lib/test_bpf.c
ind
Unsigned Jump-if-Greater-Than.
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov
Cc: Daniel Borkmann
Cc: "David S. Miller"
Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
Cc: Michael Ellerman
Cc: Paul Mackerras
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao
---
lib/test_bpf.c | 29 +
1 file changed, 29 insertion
JMP_JSET tests incorrectly used BPF_JNE. Fix the same.
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov
Cc: Daniel Borkmann
Cc: "David S. Miller"
Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
Cc: Michael Ellerman
Cc: Paul Mackerras
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao
---
lib/test_bpf.c | 8
1 file changed, 4 insert
On 2016/04/01 08:34PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 04/01/2016 08:10 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >On 4/1/16 2:58 AM, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> >>PPC64 eBPF JIT compiler. Works for both ABIv1 and ABIv2.
> >>
> >>Enable with:
> >>echo 1 > /proc/sys/n
: Alexei Starovoitov
Cc: Daniel Borkmann
Cc: David S. Miller
Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
Cc: Michael Ellerman
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao
---
v2: no changes
samples/bpf/map_perf_test_user.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/sam
While at it, remove the generation of .s files and fix some typos in the
related comment.
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov
Cc: David S. Miller
Cc: Daniel Borkmann
Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
Cc: Michael Ellerman
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao
---
v2: removed generation of .s files
samples/bpf
vid S. Miller
Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
Cc: Michael Ellerman
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao
---
v2: updated macros using ({ }) gcc extension as per Alexei
samples/bpf/bpf_helpers.h | 26 ++
samples/bpf/spintest_kern.c | 2 +-
samples/bpf/tracex2_kern.c
On 2016/03/31 10:52AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 3/31/16 4:25 AM, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> ...
> >+
> >+#ifdef __powerpc__
> >+#define BPF_KPROBE_READ_RET_IP(ip, ctx) { (ip) = (ctx)->link; }
> >+#define BPF_KRETPROBE_READ_RET_IP(ip, ctx) BPF_KPRO
On 2016/03/31 08:19PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 03/31/2016 07:46 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >On 3/31/16 4:25 AM, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> >> clang $(NOSTDINC_FLAGS) $(LINUXINCLUDE) $(EXTRA_CFLAGS) \
> >> -D__KERNEL__ -D__ASM_SYSREG_H -Wno-unu
On 2016/03/31 10:49AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 3/31/16 4:25 AM, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> >Make BPF samples build depend on CONFIG_SAMPLE_BPF. We still don't add a
> >Kconfig option since that will add a dependency on llvm for allyesconfig
> >builds which may not be d
On 2016/03/31 10:43AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 3/31/16 4:25 AM, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> >Building BPF samples is failing with the below error:
> >
> >samples/bpf/map_perf_test_user.c: In function ‘main’:
> >samples/bpf/map_perf_test_user.c:134:9: error: variable
86 matches
Mail list logo
