[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ec6df1ee90f832dae90d69a5301bfe18c32e794f.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 02:26:33 +0200
From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>
To: Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov
<ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, John Fastabend
<john.fastabend@...il.com>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Martin
KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song
<yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Stanislav
Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa
<jolsa@...nel.org>, Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, Benjamin Tissoires
<benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Shuah
Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC bpf-next v3 05/16] bpf/verifier: add bpf_timer as a
kfunc capable type
On Fri, 2024-02-23 at 02:22 +0200, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
[...]
> > + case BPF_TIMER:
> > + /* FIXME: kptr does the above, should we use the same? */
[...]
> I tried the following simple program and it verifies fine:
Sorry, I meant that I tried it with the above check removed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists