[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMEtUuzaCEX9RKDBMnQBZSHdTjjidp81myfSVVi4qQqtSGgtmw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 09:17:41 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
To: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
Chema Gonzalez <chema@...gle.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...uxfoundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 net-next 12/12] bpf: mini eBPF library, test stubs and
verifier testsuite
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 12:16 AM, Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>
> That actually still doesn't answer my question why the test stub
> cannot live in lib/test_bpf where we have our actual testing
> framework for eBPF/BPF, also since you exactly only build test_stub.c
> when TEST_BPF is enabled which is the Kconfig for lib/test_bpf.
multiple reasons:
1.
lib/test_bpf.c is a module, whereas test_stub.c is kernel builtin.
2.
I wasn't sure that reusing CONFIG_TEST_BPF for this
purpose was a good idea. May be it's better to introduce
CONFIG_BPF_VERIFIER_TEST_STUBS or something.
3.
kernel/bpf/test_stubs.c can be removed once real tracing
or socket use case is in.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists