[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAADnVQJ0dmxYTnaQC1UiSo7MhcTy2KRWJWJKw4jyxFWby-JgRg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 14:27:30 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
Kairui Song <kasong@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] x86/bpf: Fix 64-bit JIT frame pointer usage
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 2:19 PM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 02:05:56PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > Have you tested it ?
> > I really doubt, since in my test both CONFIG_UNWINDER_ORC and
> > CONFIG_UNWINDER_FRAME_POINTER failed to unwind through such odd frame.
>
> Hm, are you seeing selftest failures? They seem to work for me.
>
> > Here is much simple patch that I mentioned in the email yesterday,
> > but you failed to listen instead of focusing on perceived 'code readability'.
> >
> > It makes one proper frame and both frame and orc unwinders are happy.
>
> I'm on my way out the door and I just skimmed it, but it looks fine.
>
> Some of the code and patch description look familiar, please be sure to
> give me proper credit.
credit means something positive.
your contribution to bpf jit fix was negative.
I'm going to rewrite the fix from relying on patch 3.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists