On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 12:40 PM Daniel Xu wrote:
>
> +
> +/* Returns constant key value if possible, else -1 */
> +static long get_constant_map_key(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
> +struct bpf_reg_state *key)
> +{
> + struct bpf_func_state *state = func(env, k
On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 5:55 PM Daniel Xu wrote:
>
> Right now there exists prog produce / userspace consume and userspace
> produce / prog consume support. But it is also useful to have prog
> produce / prog consume.
>
> For example, we want to track the latency overhead of cpumap in
> production.
On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 9:33 AM Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/srcu.h b/include/linux/srcu.h
> index 84daaa33ea0ab..4ba96e2cfa405 100644
> --- a/include/linux/srcu.h
> +++ b/include/linux/srcu.h
...
> +static inline int srcu_read_lock_lite(struct srcu_struct *ssp)
> __acqu
On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 4:40 AM Puranjay Mohan wrote:
>
> Implement bpf_send_signal_pid and bpf_send_signal_tgid helpers which are
> similar to bpf_send_signal_thread and bpf_send_signal helpers
> respectively but can be used to send signals to other threads and
> processes.
Thanks for working on
On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 3:49 PM Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
> Functions marked for error injection can have an associated static key
> that guards the callsite(s) to avoid overhead of calling an empty
> function when no error injection is in progress.
>
> Outside of the error injection framework itse
On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 7:24 AM Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
> On 6/20/24 12:49 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > --- a/mm/slub.c
> > +++ b/mm/slub.c
> > @@ -3874,13 +3874,37 @@ static __always_inline void
> > maybe_wipe_obj_freeptr(struct kmem_cache *s,
> > 0, sizeof(void *));
> >
On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 3:49 PM Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
> When CONFIG_FUNCTION_ERROR_INJECTION is disabled,
> within_error_injection_list() will return false for any address and the
> result of check_non_sleepable_error_inject() denylist is thus redundant.
> The bpf_non_sleepable_error_inject lis
On Sat, Jun 1, 2024 at 1:57 PM Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
> On 5/31/24 6:43 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 2:33 AM Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> might_alloc(flags);
> >>
> >> - if (unlikely(should_failslab(s, fl
t; might_alloc(flags);
>
> - if (unlikely(should_failslab(s, flags)))
> - return NULL;
> + if (static_branch_unlikely(&should_failslab_active)) {
> + if (should_failslab(s, flags))
> + return NULL;
> + }
makes sense.
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov
Do you have any microbenchmark numbers before/after this optimization?
On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 1:49 PM Deepak Gupta wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 12:48:16PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> >hi,
> >as part of the effort on speeding up the uprobes [0] coming with
> >return uprobe optimization by using syscall instead of the trap
> >on the uretprobe trampoline.
>
> I und
On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 12:33 AM Ubisectech Sirius
wrote:
>
> Hello.
> We are Ubisectech Sirius Team, the vulnerability lab of China ValiantSec.
> Recently, our team has discovered a issue in Linux kernel 6.7. Attached to
> the email were a PoC file of the issue.
Jiri,
please take a look.
>
ICK_MMAP_LAYOUT)
> void arch_pick_mmap_layout(struct mm_struct *mm, struct rlimit *rlim_stack)
> {
> mm->mmap_base = TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE;
> - mm->get_unmapped_area = arch_get_unmapped_area;
> + clear_bit(MMF_TOPDOWN, &mm->flags);
> }
> #endif
Makes sense to me.
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov
for the idea and for bpf bits.
Hi Andrii,
syzbot found UAF in raw_tp cookie series in bpf-next.
Reverting the whole merge
2e244a72cd48 ("Merge branch 'bpf-raw-tracepoint-support-for-bpf-cookie'")
fixes the issue.
Pls take a look.
See C reproducer below. It splats consistently with CONFIG_KASAN=y
Thanks.
On Sun, Mar 24, 2024
On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 6:21 PM Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
>
> Thus, what I need is to make fprobe to use function-graph tracer's shadow
> stack and trampoline instead of rethook. This may need to generalize its
> interface so that we can share it between fprobe and function-graph tracer,
> but we
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 5:35 AM Florent Revest wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 12:54 AM Alexei Starovoitov
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 05:52:39PM +0200, Florent Revest wrote:
> > > This type provides the guarantee that an argument is going to be a co
On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 1:16 AM Christophe Leroy
wrote:
>
>
>
> Le 16/04/2021 à 01:49, Alexei Starovoitov a écrit :
> > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 8:41 AM Quentin Monnet
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> 2021-04-15 16:37 UTC+0200 ~ Daniel Borkmann
> >>
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 4:20 AM Tiezhu Yang wrote:
>
> There exist some errors "404 Not Found" when I click the link
> of "MAINTAINERS" [1], "samples/bpf/" [2] and "selftests" [3]
> in the documentation "HOWTO interact with BPF subsystem" [4].
>
> Use correct link of "MAINTAINERS" and just remove
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 05:52:39PM +0200, Florent Revest wrote:
> This type provides the guarantee that an argument is going to be a const
> pointer to somewhere in a read-only map value. It also checks that this
> pointer is followed by a zero character before the end of the map value.
>
> Signed
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 6:52 AM Pedro Tammela wrote:
>
> Em dom., 18 de abr. de 2021 às 19:56, Alexei Starovoitov
> escreveu:
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 1:03 PM Pedro Tammela wrote:
> > >
> > > ENOTSUPP is not a valid userland errno[1], which is a
On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 1:03 PM Pedro Tammela wrote:
>
> ENOTSUPP is not a valid userland errno[1], which is annoying for
> userland applications that implement a fallback to iterative, report
> errors via 'strerror()' or both.
>
> The batched ops return this errno whenever an operation
> is not i
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 8:41 AM Quentin Monnet wrote:
>
> 2021-04-15 16:37 UTC+0200 ~ Daniel Borkmann
> > On 4/15/21 11:32 AM, Jianlin Lv wrote:
> >> For debugging JITs, dumping the JITed image to kernel log is discouraged,
> >> "bpftool prog dump jited" is much better way to examine JITed dumps.
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 9:32 AM wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Alexei Starovoitov
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 9:19 AM wrote:
> > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Alexei Starovo
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 9:19 AM wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Alexei Starovoitov
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 9:10 AM wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > Fro
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 9:10 AM wrote:
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Alexei Starovoitov
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 2:52 AM Yang Li wrote:
> > >
> > > Fix the following coccicheck warnings:
> > > ./tools/
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 2:52 AM Yang Li wrote:
>
> Fix the following coccicheck warnings:
> ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h:189:7-11: WARNING
> comparing pointer to 0, suggest !E
> ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h:361:7-11: WARNING
> comparing pointer to 0, sug
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 12:11 AM Hao Sun wrote:
>
> Besides, another similar bug occurred while fault injection was enabled.
>
> BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request in bpf_prog_alloc_no_stats
>
> RAX: ffda RBX: 0
On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 12:38:06AM +0530, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 12:02:14AM IST, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 8:27 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
> > wrote:
> > > [...]
> >
> > All of these things are mess
On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 8:27 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
>
> This would be fine, because it's not a fast path or anything, but right now we
> return the id using the netlink response, otherwise for query we have to open
> the socket, prepare the msg, send and recv again. So it's a minor
> op
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 2:26 PM Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>
> On 3/30/21 10:39 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 1:11 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
> > wrote:
> >> On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 10:12:40AM IST, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> >>> Is there some succinct but complete enough docume
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 1:28 PM Andrii Nakryiko
wrote:
> >
> > In the other thread you've proposed to copy paste hash implemenation
> > into pahole. That's not ideal. If we had libbpfutil other projects
> > could have used that without copy-paste.
>
> I know it's not ideal. But I don't think libbp
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 3:54 PM Pedro Tammela wrote:
>
> BPF_CALL_2(bpf_ringbuf_submit, void *, sample, u64, flags)
> {
> + if (unlikely(flags & ~(BPF_RB_NO_WAKEUP | BPF_RB_FORCE_WAKEUP)))
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> bpf_ringbuf_commit(sample, flags, false /* discard */
On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 07:38:42PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> See above. I don't know which hassle is libbpf for users today. You
> were implying code size used for functionality users might not use
> (e.g., linker). Libbpf is a very small library, <300KB. There are
> users building tools f
On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 09:32:58PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > I think it's better to start with new library for tc/xdp and have
> > libbpf as a dependency on that new lib.
> > For example we can add it as subdir in tools/lib/bpf/.
> >
> > Similarly I think integerating static linking into li
On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 04:17:16PM +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Alexei Starovoitov writes:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 05:30:03PM +0530, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> >> This adds some basic tests for the low level bpf_tc_* API and its
> >> bpf_progr
On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 5:05 AM Atul Gopinathan
wrote:
>
> Currently, building the bpf-next source with the CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL
> enabled is causing a compilation error:
>
> "net/ipv4/bpf_tcp_ca.c:209:28: error: expected identifier or '(' before
> ',' token"
>
> Fix this by removing an unnecessary
On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 1:19 AM Jianlin Lv wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 5:40 AM Jianlin Lv wrote:
> > >
> > > When CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON is enabled, the value of
> > bpf_jit_enable
> > > in /proc/sys is limited to SYSCTL_ONE. This is not convenient for
> > > debugging.
> > > This patc
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 05:30:03PM +0530, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> This adds some basic tests for the low level bpf_tc_* API and its
> bpf_program__attach_tc_* wrapper on top.
*_block() apis from patch 3 and 4 are not covered by this selftest.
Why were they added ? And how were they tested
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 5:40 AM Jianlin Lv wrote:
>
> When CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON is enabled, the value of bpf_jit_enable in
> /proc/sys is limited to SYSCTL_ONE. This is not convenient for debugging.
> This patch modifies the value of extra2 (max) to 2 that support developers
> to emit traces o
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 11:02:08PM +0100, Florent Revest wrote:
>
> +struct bpf_snprintf_buf {
> + char buf[MAX_SNPRINTF_MEMCPY][MAX_SNPRINTF_STR_LEN];
> +};
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct bpf_snprintf_buf, bpf_snprintf_buf);
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, bpf_snprintf_buf_used);
> +
> +BPF_C
On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 8:17 AM Yonghong Song wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/19/21 12:21 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > On 3/19/21 3:11 AM, Piotr Krysiuk wrote:
> >> Hi Daniel,
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 12:16 AM Stephen Rothwell
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> diff --cc kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> >>> index 44e4
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 5:52 AM Jianlin Lv wrote:
> return BPF_CLASS(meta->insn.code);
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> index 2d3036e292a9..5d77675e7112 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
> #defi
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 4:29 AM Zhang, Qiang wrote:
>
> Hello Alexei Starovoitov Daniel Borkmann
> Please review this patch.
Please don't top post.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 6:29 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 09:13:24AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 11:22:48 +0100
> > Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > > After this FEATURE_NOPL is unused except for required-features for
> > > x86_64. FEATURE_K8 is only
On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 12:37 PM Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> The size of the fields and order changes all the time in various events. I
> recommend doing so *all the time*. If you upgrade a kernel, then all the bpf
> programs you have for that kernel should also be updated. You can't rely on
> fields
On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 12:18 PM David Ahern wrote:
>
> On 3/9/21 1:02 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 12:53:37 -0700
> > David Ahern wrote:
> >
> >> Changing the order of the fields will impact any bpf programs expecting
> >> the existing format
> >
> > I thought bpf programs wer
On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 12:03 PM Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 12:53:37 -0700
> David Ahern wrote:
>
> > Changing the order of the fields will impact any bpf programs expecting
> > the existing format
>
> I thought bpf programs were not API.
That is correct.
On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 7:01 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 09:36:30AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 07:45:44PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > That cacheline_aligned goes back many years, this is not new, it
> > > seems to come from back in 2
On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 5:46 PM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 2021, at 5:22 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 1:02 PM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>> On Mar 2, 2021, at 12:24 PM
On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 1:02 PM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 2021, at 12:24 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 10:38 AM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >>
> >> Is there something like a uprobe test suite
On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 10:38 AM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> Is there something like a uprobe test suite? How maintained /
> actively used is uprobe?
uprobe+bpf is heavily used in production.
selftests/bpf has only one test for it though.
Why are you asking?
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 4:04 PM Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 03:43:13PM -0800, Song Liu wrote:
> > This set enables task local storage for non-BPF_LSM programs.
> >
> > It is common for tracing BPF program to access per-task data. Currently,
> > these data are stored in hash
On 2/22/21 11:19 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
+ bpf_task_storage_lock();
sdata = bpf_local_storage_update(
task, (struct bpf_local_storage_map *)map, value, map_flags);
this should probably be container_of() instead of casting
bpf_task_storage.c uses casting in multi
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 3:14 AM Florent Revest wrote:
>
> +BPF_CALL_1(bpf_get_socket_ptr_cookie, struct sock *, sk)
> +{
> + return sk ? sock_gen_cookie(sk) : 0;
> +}
> +
> +const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_get_socket_ptr_cookie_proto = {
> + .func = bpf_get_socket_ptr_cookie,
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 5:57 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>
> Somewhat related.. I had this pending.
>
> ---
> Subject: kprobes: Remove kprobe::fault_handler
> From: Peter Zijlstra
> Date: Tue Feb 2 10:43:41 CET 2021
>
> The reason for kprobe::fault_handler(), as given by their comment:
>
> * We c
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 6:49 AM Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 09:32:34 +0100 (CET)
> Miroslav Benes wrote:
>
> > powerpc has this
> >
> > static inline unsigned long klp_get_ftrace_location(unsigned long faddr)
> > {
> > /*
> > * Live patch works only with -mprofile
On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 10:21 AM Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> On 2/7/21 9:58 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 07, 2021 at 09:49:18AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >> On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 2:40 AM Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >>> - Disable CET instrumentation in the kernel so that gcc doesn't add
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 5:40 PM Xu Jia wrote:
>
> Prefer 'static const' over 'const static' here
>
> Signed-off-by: Xu Jia
> ---
> kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c
> index 1622a44d1617..75
On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 9:07 AM Yonghong Song wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/2/21 5:50 AM, Brendan Jackman wrote:
> > When BPF_FETCH is set, atomic instructions load a value from memory
> > into a register. The current verifier code first checks via
> > check_mem_access whether we can access the memory, and t
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 7:00 AM Brendan Jackman wrote:
> +
> +SEC("fentry/bpf_fentry_test1")
> +int BPF_PROG(sub, int x)
> +{
> + int a = 0;
> + int b = __sync_fetch_and_add(&a, 1);
It probably needs ENABLE_ATOMICS_TESTS ?
Otherwise clang without -mcpu=v3 will complain:
"fatal error:
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 2:32 PM Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>
> On 1/30/21 12:45 PM, Florent Revest wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 1:49 PM Daniel Borkmann
> > wrote:
> >> On 1/29/21 11:57 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> >>> On 1/27/21 10:01 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10
On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 11:02:49AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 18:59:43 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 09:45:48AM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > Same things apply to bpf side. We can statically prove safety for
On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 02:01:03PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 18:59:43 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 09:45:48AM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > Same things apply to bpf side. We can statically prove safety for
On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 8:24 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 10:59:52AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 22:40:11 +0900
> > Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> >
> > > > So what, they can all happen with random locks held. Marking them as NMI
> > > > enables a whole
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 07:24:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 06:45:56PM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> > it would be placed on the __fentry__ (and not endbr64) hence it works.
> > So perhaps a workaround outside of bpf could essentially detect this
> > scenario and adj
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 10:54 AM Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 13:39:44 +
> Brendan Jackman wrote:
>
> > Difference from v2->v3 [1]:
> >
> > * Just fixed a commite message, rebased, and added Lukas' review tag -
> > thanks
> >Lukas!
> >
> > Difference from v1->v2 [1]:
>
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 11:57 AM Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:39 PM Brendan Jackman wrote:
> >
> > Alexei pointed out [1] that this wording is pretty confusing. Here's
> > an attempt to be more explicit and clear.
> >
> > [1]
> > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAADnVQJVvwoZsE1
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 04:06:13PM +, Brendan Jackman wrote:
> When BPF_FETCH is set, atomic instructions load a value from memory
> into a register. The current verifier code first checks via
> check_mem_access whether we can access the memory, and then checks
> via check_reg_arg whether we ca
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:22 AM angkery wrote:
>
> From: Junlin Yang
>
> Change 'exeeds' to 'exceeds'.
>
> Signed-off-by: Junlin Yang
The patch didn't reach patchwork.
Please reduce cc list and resubmit to bpf@vger only.
Also pls mention [PATCH bpf-next] in the subject.
> ---
> tools/testing/
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 4:03 AM Pan Bian wrote:
>
> Put file f if inode_storage_ptr() returns NULL.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pan Bian
> ---
> kernel/bpf/bpf_inode_storage.c | 6 +-
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_inode_storage.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_ino
tun_prog __rcu **prog_p,
> > > prog = NULL;
> > > } else {
> > > prog = bpf_prog_get_type(fd, BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER);
> > > + if (IS_ERR(prog))
> > > + prog = bpf_prog_get_type(fd,
> >
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 9:08 AM KP Singh wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 5:00 PM Florent Revest wrote:
> >
> > This builds up on the existing socket cookie test which checks whether
> > the bpf_get_socket_cookie helpers provide the same value in
> > cgroup/connect6 and sockops programs for a s
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 4:22 AM Qais Yousef wrote:
>
> Changes in v3:
> * Fix not returning error value correctly in
> trigger_module_test_write() (Yonghong)
> * Add Yonghong acked-by to patch 1.
Applied. Thanks
Adding appropriate mailing list to cc...
My wild guess is that as soon as socket got created:
socket(PF_PACKET, SOCK_RAW, htons(ETH_P_ALL));
the packets were already queued to it.
So later setsockopt() is too late to filter.
Eric, thoughts?
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 6:55 AM Tom Cook wrote:
>
> Ano
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 3:44 PM Yonghong Song wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/14/21 2:02 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 01:05:33PM -0800, Yonghong Song wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 1/14/21 12:01 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:56:33AM -0800, Yonghong Song wrote:
>
> >>
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:18 AM Brendan Jackman wrote:
>
> There's still one unresolved review comment from John[3] which I
> will resolve with a followup patch.
>
> Differences from v6->v7 [1]:
>
> * Fixed riscv build error detected by 0-day robot.
Applied.
Thanks a lot.
Please address John's
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 2:29 PM KP Singh wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 6:38 AM Gilad Reti wrote:
> >
> > Add support for pointer to mem register spilling, to allow the verifier
> > to track pointers to valid memory addresses. Such pointers are returned
> > for example by a successful call of
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 1:19 AM Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 06:49:58PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:38:19PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > hi,
> > > adding the support to have buildid stored in mmap2 event,
> &g
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 03:42:24PM +, Brendan Jackman wrote:
> Happy new year everyone, and thanks once again for the reviews.
>
> There's still one unresolved review comment from John[3] but I don't
> think it needs to block the patchset as it stands, it can be a
> separate patch. Hope that's
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:42 AM Yuri Benditovich
wrote:
>
> This program type can set skb hash value. It will be useful
> when the tun will support hash reporting feature if virtio-net.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yuri Benditovich
> ---
> drivers/net/tun.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> d
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:38:19PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> hi,
> adding the support to have buildid stored in mmap2 event,
> so we can bypass the final perf record hunt on build ids.
>
> This patchset allows perf to record build ID in mmap2 event,
> and adds perf tooling to store/download binari
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 05:32:51PM +, Alan Maguire wrote:
> The BPF Type Format (BTF) can be used in conjunction with the helper
> bpf_snprintf_btf() to display kernel data with type information.
>
> This series generalizes that support and shares it with libbpf so
> that libbpf can display ty
On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 12:00 AM Xichen Lin wrote:
>
> From: Xichen Lin
>
> Check the signature of a BPF program against the same set of keys for
> module signature checking.
>
> Currently the format of a signed BPF program is similar to that of
> a signed kernel module, composed of BPF bytecode,
On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 02:24:12PM +0200, Yuri Benditovich wrote:
> This program type can set skb hash value. It will be useful
> when the tun will support hash reporting feature if virtio-net.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yuri Benditovich
> ---
> drivers/net/tun.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+
On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 3:39 AM Qais Yousef wrote:
>
> On 01/04/21 10:59, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > > > I did have a patch that allowed that. It might be worth trying to
> > > > > upstream it.
> > > > > It just required a new macro wh
On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 03:26:31PM +, Alan Maguire wrote:
>
> ksnoop can be used to show function signatures; for example:
>
> $ ksnoop info ip_send_skb
> int ip_send_skb(struct net * net, struct sk_buff * skb);
>
> Then we can trace the function, for example:
>
> $ ksnoop trace ip_send_
On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 10:29 AM Qais Yousef wrote:
>
> On 09/08/20 09:19, Phil Auld wrote:
> > Hi Quais,
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 12:02:24PM +0100 Qais Yousef wrote:
> > > On 09/02/20 09:54, Phil Auld wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I think this decoupling is not necessary. The natural place for
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 7:54 AM Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 12:11:36PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 08:31:26AM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Can we please make the eBPF code stop referencing this function instead
> > > of papering over t
On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 10:53:57AM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 7:20 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 09:26:09AM -0800, Yonghong Song wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12/17/20 7:31 AM, Florent Reves
On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 09:26:09AM -0800, Yonghong Song wrote:
>
>
> On 12/17/20 7:31 AM, Florent Revest wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 7:47 AM Yonghong Song wrote:
> > > On 12/11/20 6:40 AM, Florent Revest wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 10:18
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 10:07:37AM +, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> Implement Extended Berkeley Packet Filter on Powerpc 32
>
> Test result with test_bpf module:
>
> test_bpf: Summary: 378 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [354/366 JIT'ed]
nice!
> Registers mapping:
>
> [BPF_REG_0] = r11-r12
>
On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 6:31 PM Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 17:12:43 -0800
> Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>
> > > > > > FWIW, I intend to do some consolidation/renaming in this area. I
> > > > > > trust that will not be a problem?
&
On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 2:32 PM Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 06:05:52PM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 04:51:48PM +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 03:08:26PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 0
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 2:59 PM Alexei Starovoitov
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 2:53 PM Michal Kubecek wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 02:44:22PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 10:36 AM Justin Forbes
> > > wrote:
&g
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 2:53 PM Michal Kubecek wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 02:44:22PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 10:36 AM Justin Forbes wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 2:16 AM Michal Kubecek wrote:
> > >
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 10:36 AM Justin Forbes wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 2:16 AM Michal Kubecek wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 08:18:57AM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > 在 2020/11/11 上午3:50, Andrew Morton 写道:
> > > > On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 08:39:24 +0530 Souptick Joarder
> >
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 10:22:34AM +, Brendan Jackman wrote:
> Add missing newlines and fix polarity of strerror argument.
>
> Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman
Applied, Thanks
On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 1:59 PM Roman Gushchin wrote:
>
> 5) Cryptic -EPERM is returned on exceeding the limit. Libbpf even had
>a function to "explain" this case for users.
...
> v9:
> - always charge the saved memory cgroup, by Daniel, Toke and Alexei
> - added bpf_map_kzalloc()
> - reb
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 12:32 PM Florent Revest wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2020-12-01 at 16:55 -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 8:09 AM Yonghong Song wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11/27/20 3:20 AM, KP Singh wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 8:35 AM Yonghong Song wrote:
> > > >
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 2:52 AM Brendan Jackman wrote:
>
> Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 09:50:00PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 4:14 AM Brendan Jackman wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 05:15:52PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>
On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 4:38 AM Brendan Jackman wrote:
>
> I guess it's also worth remembering other archs might have an atomic
> subtract.
which one?
arm64 LSE implements atomic_fetch_sub as neg+ldadd.
imo x64 and arm64 example outweighs choices by other archs if there are such.
Even without LSE
1 - 100 of 1224 matches
Mail list logo