[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHap4zv=EC6dL7VP76pfLYJo5VxW2s5oW37XsfF8Uqrg_XhyRg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:43:50 -0500
From: Mauricio Vásquez Bernal <mauricio@...volk.io>
To: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc: Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com>,
Rafael David Tinoco <rafaeldtinoco@...il.com>,
Lorenzo Fontana <lorenzo.fontana@...stic.co>,
Leonardo Di Donato <leonardo.didonato@...stic.co>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/3] libbpf: Implement BTFGen
> [...]
> > Changelog:
> >
> > v2 > v3:
> > - expose internal libbpf APIs to bpftool instead
> > - implement btfgen in bpftool
> > - drop btf__raw_data() from libbpf
>
> Looks like this breaks bpf-next CI, please take a look:
>
> https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/runs/4565944884?check_suite_focus=true
>
Thanks Daniel for checking this up. I have spotted a potential issue:
the instruction is also patched when prog->obj->gen_loader is set.
I'll fix it in the next iteration but I'm not sure it's causing those
test failures. I tried to reproduce them in my fork but they pass
fine: https://github.com/mauriciovasquezbernal/linux/runs/4586966124?check_suite_focus=true.
Could it be a false positive?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists