[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <593F20FA.6010505@iogearbox.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 01:17:14 +0200
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: Shubham Bansal <illusionist.neo@...il.com>
CC: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm: eBPF JIT compiler
On 06/12/2017 05:40 PM, Shubham Bansal wrote:
[...]
>> Did you manage to get tail calls tested as well (I assume so since you
>> implemented emit_bpf_tail_call() in the patch but just out of curiosity)?
>
> I didn't try it exclusively, I thought test_bpf must have tested it. Doesn't it?
In samples/bpf/ there's sockex3* that would exercise it, or
alternatively in iproute2 repo under examples/bpf/ there's
bpf_cyclic.c and bpf_tailcall.c as a prog.
Hm, generally, we should really add a test case also to BPF
selftest suite to facilitate that. I'll likely do that for
the next batch of BPF patches.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists