On 02/05/2018 18:24, John Fastabend wrote:
On 05/02/2018 09:59 AM, Jiong Wang wrote:
On 01/05/2018 23:22, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
...
[ 27.784931] ? bpf_int_jit_compile+0x7ac/0xab0
[ 27.785475] bpf_int_jit_compile+0x2b6/0xab0
[ 27.786001] ? do_jit+0x6020/0x6020
[ 27.786428] ?
On 05/02/2018 09:59 AM, Jiong Wang wrote:
> On 01/05/2018 23:22, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> ...
>> [ 27.784931] ? bpf_int_jit_compile+0x7ac/0xab0
>> [ 27.785475] bpf_int_jit_compile+0x2b6/0xab0
>> [ 27.786001] ? do_jit+0x6020/0x6020
>> [ 27.786428] ? kasan_kmalloc+0xa0/0xd0
>> [
On 01/05/2018 23:22, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
...
[ 27.784931] ? bpf_int_jit_compile+0x7ac/0xab0
[ 27.785475] bpf_int_jit_compile+0x2b6/0xab0
[ 27.786001] ? do_jit+0x6020/0x6020
[ 27.786428] ? kasan_kmalloc+0xa0/0xd0
[ 27.786885] bpf_check+0x2c05/0x4c40
[ 27.787346] ?
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 06:28:13PM -0400, Jiong Wang wrote:
>
> There is no functional change by this patch set.
> No bpf selftest regression found after this patch set.
I was about to apply them, but there is a regression:
[ 27.773899]
This patch set clean up some code logic related with managing subprog
information.
Part of the set are inspried by Edwin's code in his RFC:
"bpf/verifier: subprog/func_call simplifications"
but with clearer separation so it could be easier to review.
- Path 1 unifies main prog and