On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 07:33:20PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > On 8/16/19 6:50 PM, Jose E. Marchesi wrote: > So I think we probably want an effective target check for indirect calls > rather than checking explicitly for ebpf in all these files.
+1 > It also seems like rather than checking for ebpf on files with large > stacks, we should be using the generic mechanisms to defined the allowed > size of the stack (mentioned in prior review) & mark test which use too > much space. This would almost certainly help other embedded targets as > well. +2 > Not sure the best way to deal with too many arguments. I suspect we > want an efffective target check for that. Keeping this up-to-date will > be painful as people write more tests. You could add a command line option to *allow* many args. You wouldn't use that in the kernel, but it helps (compiler) testing a lot. You could do something similar for indirect jumps, and bigger stack size, etc. Segher
