linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/2] bpf,riscv: Implement bpf_addr_space

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]

Message-ID: <87il1a3w60.fsf@all.your.base.are.belong.to.us>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:15:35 +0100
From: Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org>
To: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@...il.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann
 <daniel@...earbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Martin KaFai
 Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>, Song Liu
 <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, John Fastabend
 <john.fastabend@...il.com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Stanislav
 Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa
 <jolsa@...nel.org>, Luke Nelson <luke.r.nels@...il.com>, Xi Wang
 <xi.wang@...il.com>, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, Palmer
 Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
 bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Pu Lehui <pulehui@...weicloud.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/2] bpf,riscv: Implement
 bpf_addr_space_cast instruction

Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org> writes:

> Bjorn, do you think there's anything we can do about these kinda
> misleading CI failures for bpf stuff? Some stuff that touches bpf
> definitely is worth us building, but should we try and build it on top
> of the bpf tree instead?

IMO: The way to go is enabling RV support in the BPF CI (I'll expand on
this in Puranjay's later mail), and ignore BPF series for the RV
patchwork CI. I think having multiple trees in the RV CI is not worth
the pain...

Sort of related is that I think it could be worthwhile only building
series that had some human interaction (a pair of eyes -- "yes, this
does make sense to build"). Right now we're just building everything,
and we have to pay (money *and* time) for it.

..and then the BPF series would e.g. not be built at the RV PW CI.

(But mostly me thinking out loud! ;-))
Björn