From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: daniel@iogearbox.net (Daniel Borkmann) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 01:17:14 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v2] arm: eBPF JIT compiler In-Reply-To: References: <1495754003-21099-1-git-send-email-illusionist.neo@gmail.com> <593E6B0F.8070901@iogearbox.net> Message-ID: <593F20FA.6010505@iogearbox.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 06/12/2017 05:40 PM, Shubham Bansal wrote: [...] >> Did you manage to get tail calls tested as well (I assume so since you >> implemented emit_bpf_tail_call() in the patch but just out of curiosity)? > > I didn't try it exclusively, I thought test_bpf must have tested it. Doesn't it? In samples/bpf/ there's sockex3* that would exercise it, or alternatively in iproute2 repo under examples/bpf/ there's bpf_cyclic.c and bpf_tailcall.c as a prog. Hm, generally, we should really add a test case also to BPF selftest suite to facilitate that. I'll likely do that for the next batch of BPF patches. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753101AbdFLXRZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jun 2017 19:17:25 -0400 Received: from www62.your-server.de ([213.133.104.62]:44101 "EHLO www62.your-server.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752785AbdFLXRY (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jun 2017 19:17:24 -0400 Message-ID: <593F20FA.6010505@iogearbox.net> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 01:17:14 +0200 From: Daniel Borkmann User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Shubham Bansal CC: Kees Cook , Network Development , "David S. Miller" , Alexei Starovoitov , Russell King , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , LKML , Andrew Lunn Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm: eBPF JIT compiler References: <1495754003-21099-1-git-send-email-illusionist.neo@gmail.com> <593E6B0F.8070901@iogearbox.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated-Sender: daniel@iogearbox.net Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 06/12/2017 05:40 PM, Shubham Bansal wrote: [...] >> Did you manage to get tail calls tested as well (I assume so since you >> implemented emit_bpf_tail_call() in the patch but just out of curiosity)? > > I didn't try it exclusively, I thought test_bpf must have tested it. Doesn't it? In samples/bpf/ there's sockex3* that would exercise it, or alternatively in iproute2 repo under examples/bpf/ there's bpf_cyclic.c and bpf_tailcall.c as a prog. Hm, generally, we should really add a test case also to BPF selftest suite to facilitate that. I'll likely do that for the next batch of BPF patches.