Re: [PATCH 30/38] Allow relocation on BPF_OR instructions

[Kris Van Hees <kris.van.hees@oracle.com>]

On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 05:34:17PM -0400, Kris Van Hees wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 01:38:56AM -0400, eugene.loh@oracle.com wrote:
> > From: Eugene Loh <eugene.loh@oracle.com>
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Eugene Loh <eugene.loh@oracle.com>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Kris Van Hees <kris.van.hees@oracle.com>

As far as I can see, there is nothing that uses this anymore.  I suggest we
ut it in cold storage until there is a need for it?  Alternatively, we could
turn this into a patch that adds support for all possible operations that
could require relocations like this, and introduce that to the tree instead
to support future uses.

> > ---
> >  libdtrace/dt_as.c | 2 ++
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/libdtrace/dt_as.c b/libdtrace/dt_as.c
> > index a634b855..4b397f51 100644
> > --- a/libdtrace/dt_as.c
> > +++ b/libdtrace/dt_as.c
> > @@ -280,6 +280,7 @@ dt_as(dt_pcb_t *pcb)
> >  		case BPF_ST | BPF_MEM | BPF_DW:		/* stdw */
> >  		case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOV | BPF_K:	/* mov */
> >  		case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_ADD | BPF_K:	/* add */
> > +		case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_OR  | BPF_K:	/* or */
> >  			if (idp->di_flags & DT_IDFLG_BPF)
> >  				brel++;
> >  			else
> > @@ -492,6 +493,7 @@ fail:
> >  			case BPF_ST | BPF_MEM | BPF_DW:		/* stdw */
> >  			case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOV | BPF_K:	/* mov */
> >  			case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_ADD | BPF_K:	/* add */
> > +			case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_OR  | BPF_K:	/* or */
> >  				rp->dofr_type = R_BPF_64_32;
> >  				break;
> >  			case BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | BPF_DW:		/* lddw */
> > -- 
> > 2.18.4
> >