netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 0/4] selftests/bpf: fix compiling loop{1,2,3}.c on s390

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 12 Jul 2019 10:55:52 +0200
From:   Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>
Cc:     bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Y Song <ys114321@...il.com>, daniel@...earbox.net,
        davem@...emloft.net, ast@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 0/4] selftests/bpf: fix compiling
 loop{1,2,3}.c on s390

> Am 11.07.2019 um 22:35 schrieb Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>:
> 
> On 07/11, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
>> Use PT_REGS_RC(ctx) instead of ctx->rax, which is not present on s390.
>> 
>> This patch series consists of three preparatory commits, which make it
>> possible to use PT_REGS_RC in BPF selftests, followed by the actual fix.
>> 
> Still looks good to me, thanks!
> 
> Reviewed-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
> 
> Again, should probably go via bpf to fix the existing tests, not bpf-next
> (but I see bpf tree is not synced with net tree yet).

Sorry, I missed your comment the last time. You are right - that’s the
reason I’ve been sending this to bpf-next so far — loop*.c don’t even
exist in the bpf tree.