[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <957fff81-d845-ebc9-0e80-dbb1f1736b40@fb.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 17:00:25 +0000
From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
CC: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
"Yonghong Song" <yhs@...com>, Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 02/10] libbpf: implement BPF CO-RE offset
relocation algorithm
On 7/26/19 11:25 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>>> + } else if (class == BPF_ST && BPF_MODE(insn->code) == BPF_MEM) {
>>> + if (insn->imm != orig_off)
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> + insn->imm = new_off;
>>> + pr_debug("prog '%s': patched insn #%d (ST | MEM) imm %d -> %d\n",
>>> + bpf_program__title(prog, false),
>>> + insn_idx, orig_off, new_off);
>> I'm pretty sure llvm was not capable of emitting BPF_ST insn.
>> When did that change?
> I just looked at possible instructions that could have 32-bit
> immediate value. This is `*(rX) = offsetof(struct s, field)`, which I
> though is conceivable. Do you think I should drop it?
Just trying to point out that since it's not emitted by llvm
this code is likely untested ?
Or you've created a bpf asm test for this?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists