On Sun, 13 May 2018, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 10:30:02PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > But yes, the situation is slightly different here because tools which
> > create trace event magic _HAVE_ to pull in kernel headers. At the same time
> > these tools depend on a com
On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 10:30:02PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, 12 May 2018, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Alexei Starovoitov
> > wrote:
> > > I see no option, but to fix the kernel.
> > > Regardless whether it's called user space breakage or kernel bre
On Sat, 12 May 2018, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Alexei Starovoitov
> wrote:
> > I see no option, but to fix the kernel.
> > Regardless whether it's called user space breakage or kernel breakage.
There is a big difference. If you are abusing a kernel internal hea
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Alexei Starovoitov
wrote:
> I see no option, but to fix the kernel.
> Regardless whether it's called user space breakage or kernel breakage.
Peter,
could you please ack the patch or better yet take it into tip tree
and send to Linus asap ?
rc5 is almost here and
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:58:35AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> libbcc is a library. It's not only used by bcc scripts, but by production
> services that compile bpf programs with clang.
Let me get this straight: libbcc fails to compile because it
includes (through some long include chain) t
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 06:20:28PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 08:52:42AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > That makes me wonder what happened with "we do not break user space" rule?
>
> As someone already pointed out on IRC, arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> is so
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 9:28 AM Borislav Petkov wrote:
> As someone already pointed out on IRC, arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> is solely a kernel header so nothing but kernel should include it. So
> forget the userspace breakage "argument".
For what is worth, I have the same exact problem
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 08:52:42AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> That makes me wonder what happened with "we do not break user space" rule?
As someone already pointed out on IRC, arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h
is solely a kernel header so nothing but kernel should include it. So
forget the
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:06:34PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 08:31:19PM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:
>
> > This approach is preferred since the already deployed bcc scripts, or
> > any other bpf applicaitons utilizing LLVM JIT compilation functionality,
> > will continu
On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 08:31:19PM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:
> Commit d0266046ad54 ("x86: Remove FAST_FEATURE_TESTS")
> removed X86_FAST_FEATURE_TESTS and make macro static_cpu_has() always
> use __always_inline function _static_cpu_has() funciton.
> The static_cpu_has() uses gcc feature asm goto
On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 08:31:19PM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:
> This approach is preferred since the already deployed bcc scripts, or
> any other bpf applicaitons utilizing LLVM JIT compilation functionality,
> will continue work with the new kernel without re-compilation and
> re-deployment.
So
Commit d0266046ad54 ("x86: Remove FAST_FEATURE_TESTS")
removed X86_FAST_FEATURE_TESTS and make macro static_cpu_has() always
use __always_inline function _static_cpu_has() funciton.
The static_cpu_has() uses gcc feature asm goto construct,
which is not supported by clang.
Issues
==
Currently,
12 matches
Mail list logo
