netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 0/4] selftests/bpf: fix compiling loop{1,2,3}.c on s390

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]

Date:   Fri, 12 Jul 2019 15:44:06 +0200
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>
Cc:     bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Y Song <ys114321@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        ast@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 0/4] selftests/bpf: fix compiling
 loop{1,2,3}.c on s390

On 07/12/2019 10:55 AM, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
>> Am 11.07.2019 um 22:35 schrieb Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>:
>>
>> On 07/11, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
>>> Use PT_REGS_RC(ctx) instead of ctx->rax, which is not present on s390.
>>>
>>> This patch series consists of three preparatory commits, which make it
>>> possible to use PT_REGS_RC in BPF selftests, followed by the actual fix.
>>>
>> Still looks good to me, thanks!
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
>>
>> Again, should probably go via bpf to fix the existing tests, not bpf-next
>> (but I see bpf tree is not synced with net tree yet).
> 
> Sorry, I missed your comment the last time. You are right - that’s the
> reason I’ve been sending this to bpf-next so far — loop*.c don’t even
> exist in the bpf tree.

Applied to bpf tree (and also added Stanislav's Tested-by to the last
one), thanks!