[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4ee46ce9-346c-4199-9336-f937998338af@solarflare.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2019 12:23:09 +0000
From: Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
To: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
"alexei.starovoitov@...il.com" <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
"daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"oss-drivers@...ronome.com" <oss-drivers@...ronome.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC bpf-next v4 03/12] bpf: verifier: remove dead code
On 02/01/19 05:25, Yonghong Song wrote:
> On 12/31/18 5:37 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> +static int adjust_subprog_starts_after_remove(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>> + u32 off, u32 cnt)
Given how much trouble this seems to be causing, is it time for me to bring
back my patches to replace subprog_starts with a subprogno field in struct
bpf_insn_aux_data?
Something similar could maybe be done with line_info, but only if the 'dead'
line infos are left in prog->aux->linfo. Then each insn would store a
linfo_no, and on output you'd only show the line info if it was different
to the linfo_no of the previous insn. I haven't looked deeply enough into
line info implementation to know if there's anything that would break.
-Ed
Powered by blists - more mailing lists