[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87tuvxph0a.fsf@toke.dk>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 23:07:49 +0200
From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Eelco Chaudron <echaudro@...hat.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 2/8] bpf: verifier: refactor
check_attach_btf_id()
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 5:50 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
>>
>> The check_attach_btf_id() function really does three things:
>>
>> 1. It performs a bunch of checks on the program to ensure that the
>> attachment is valid.
>>
>> 2. It stores a bunch of state about the attachment being requested in
>> the verifier environment and struct bpf_prog objects.
>>
>> 3. It allocates a trampoline for the attachment.
>>
>> This patch splits out (1.) and (3.) into separate functions in preparation
>> for reusing them when the actual attachment is happening (in the
>> raw_tracepoint_open syscall operation), which will allow tracing programs
>> to have multiple (compatible) attachments.
>>
>> No functional change is intended with this patch.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
>> ---
>
> I almost acked this, but found a problem at the very last moment. See
> below, along with few more comments while I have enough context in my
> head.
Right, will fix, thanks!
> BTW, for whatever reason your patches arrived with a 12 hour delay
> yesterday (cover letter received at 5am, while patches arrived at
> 6pm), don't know if its vger or gmail...
Ugh, sorry about that. I think it's an interaction between vger and the
Red Hat corporate mail proxy - it's really a mess. I'll try switching my
patch submissions to use a different SMTP server...
-Toke
Powered by blists - more mailing lists