netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 binutils] Add BPF support to binutils...

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: <20170430.114024.1304052185817716163.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Sun, 30 Apr 2017 11:40:24 -0400 (EDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     ast@...com
Cc:     daniel@...earbox.net, aconole@...heb.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        xdp-newbies@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 binutils] Add BPF support to binutils...

From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 23:44:59 -0700

> On 4/29/17 7:37 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> BTW, should I just remove tailcall from the opcode table altogether?
> 
> yeah. tailcall is not a special opcode from user space point of view.
> Only after normal call with func_id=bpf_tail_call passes verifier
> then verifier will change insn->code into CALL|X
> It's done only to have two 'case' statement in the interpreter,
> so that normal calls and tailcalls don't interfere.
> From user space pov CALL|X opcode is reserved and we can use it
> for something in the future. Just need to change interpeter and JITs.

Ok, I've removed it from my tree.

Thanks.