From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (lindbergh.monkeyblade.net [23.128.96.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C1451878 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2023 17:04:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lj1-x229.google.com (mail-lj1-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::229]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E31D7E1 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2023 10:04:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-x229.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2b6ff1ada5dso70872001fa.2 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2023 10:04:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1689613458; x=1692205458; h=mime-version:user-agent:content-transfer-encoding:references :in-reply-to:date:cc:to:from:subject:message-id:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=PEAOb1jXVJ7ALlWk/4YorL7FQdVxh/+CGl+FcaUJFDE=; b=Oe7sRa70nZl19oqaTc1EPtiZzxWIXpvjJxfp1TwB73Znfmeno6e4Mt52zf1mQhrxlG hDA+0DmW1jVTIMjdNaeO6IQPymuv/yUsAtUc0KhaQAeOtIbBE9BayTXuR9RFSgKJKcE/ q3G1NuqoUXHx6kQQiXwwy2SjmpYuwF+tPUVIRtsZoyshLVOIuFQp4RLOj+OqZaOhQKHX Zj+Ml4e5rBQ1ZfFKUnVoBYboO1KPcGZT9gFymMPfY5tFuAbxgwzhlfSv0bQ1c4wLuXki DF4eUXix5yIDAKRj1EADmxknSGEaaCGa+8AfvENymKv+0XcOUzPm7DRlB/T+AbwQHtOe 63vg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1689613458; x=1692205458; h=mime-version:user-agent:content-transfer-encoding:references :in-reply-to:date:cc:to:from:subject:message-id:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=PEAOb1jXVJ7ALlWk/4YorL7FQdVxh/+CGl+FcaUJFDE=; b=TCcBuZ2zCBwk8ugFMl3YFZrb2QUVzFPldL94Dm33bEs8+GopeYhncsBC9sh6pyi6y+ 9SKsFMtODqGBf5/amcnDlEfMsro06uXh0LdziB21BMyH25XMKUF6DkFYIRdPmcwbZery iz1eNRr+T0zFRmnIInJ+SqhTwVtPYLzaV1t63w5CaYFaHYrOFB9tQKmlFSNXkvnEprUK 2GQQBvZwST3FnxQ9MtAh3LT5gY7UXk8OBjK3+av+WBHjDXioKRtE387iSqa8mOqMRU3b RAPL4X7cWYJV+YTQgF58frTKgW69Txg/wupja7QEFNBLai+BEA5TEuwKNKeCriWHHndJ 3myQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ABy/qLYTB7nVhvOboOilN/sTjiSSZ1sI2MnzdS48yXRM0UetIOP+6I62 Wu1l9xtCD6j3U0uoRLNhaDK1MWYpPQg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APBJJlG0blbNLLgix01xLSWXOs8V+OBVDQEINR7sljg/fODfp8kAAYzJggwz384tyeDa8zEfdwQFuA== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9b82:0:b0:2b5:95a8:4126 with SMTP id z2-20020a2e9b82000000b002b595a84126mr8252756lji.52.1689613458052; Mon, 17 Jul 2023 10:04:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.95] (host-176-36-0-241.b024.la.net.ua. [176.36.0.241]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x3-20020a5d60c3000000b0030ae499da59sm19699450wrt.111.2023.07.17.10.04.16 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 17 Jul 2023 10:04:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <0221715cb5d4bbf35b61f8e75a792f9c781d24fa.camel@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 00/15] bpf: Support new insns from cpu v4 From: Eduard Zingerman To: Alexei Starovoitov Cc: Yonghong Song , bpf , Alexei Starovoitov , Andrii Nakryiko , Daniel Borkmann , Fangrui Song , Kernel Team Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 20:04:16 +0300 In-Reply-To: References: <20230713060718.388258-1-yhs@fb.com> <8b3e804bc23d44ba3a30b9d69e6590bede857ed3.camel@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.44.4-0ubuntu1 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT, FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net On Mon, 2023-07-17 at 09:56 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Sun, Jul 16, 2023 at 6:39=E2=80=AFPM Eduard Zingerman wrote: > > - I've looked through the usage of BPF_LDX and found that there > > is a function seccomp.c:seccomp_check_filter(), that directly > > checks possible CLASS / CODE combinations. Should this function > > be updated to handle new instructions? >=20 > This is classic bpf. Why would it change? What is the concern? Sorry, I missed the call to `bpf_check_classic()` in filter.c:bpf_prepare_f= ilter().