From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mta0.migadu.com (out-118.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.118]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF5B13CE4A3 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2026 15:28:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.118 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790004519; cv=none; b=qsklX2BMm+5WMnvFaYjOeiVtTh6wVgsYVzdybC1w/73pdKYVf+S+MYMOObCLjH3TaUdj1r8PWa5eEyzdCWBmGQQvwv8BAr2hcqs+jtK3LvD4rSCefEUtKCn3A4ULJRsw5H5an+FRf1TqhxKT336Y1BsaaxJXdr8KZEynmWKeDvc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790004519; c=relaxed/simple; bh=5WsujCch+x+MVyvQWwannOvSu+sLlIUaLaQNYvQE3r4=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=KWykSdAqgIZaapeU/Ro5Iw69ISqItswFgdG8sfhHya+PG2zTs0FaImHaMWKuvTX8bRHOj7DALjY5LLuAJ/yk/sO937hoBDugQBisUfQROPVSoi3cir/JYdEaXEydsSiVL+4jh+6k435JM6gZ5jJqAVg0wpCLstAs2W+0i6nLlwM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=YpzJ2wM6; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.118 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="YpzJ2wM6" X-Envelope-To: bpf@vger.kernel.org DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; bh=5WsujCch+x+MVyvQWwannOvSu+sLlIUaLaQNYvQE3r4=; c=simple/simple; d=linux.dev; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; s=key1; t=1790004515; v=1; x=1790609315; b=YpzJ2wM6vyGMEEPEdBp7o5gtU7EUxG73+bDB9G7QIREfvN5hOYwciknUFN0XS92YdIkLaupA f798dTLHbzGwigUdpAUdLMwUXf/j+8a3M3JC3INmvj/EvFL033dNmU0TDBjJR8NUFjPPUMU+cXu Vlyiuhj4FSB0nsDhruC4+fAo= X-Envelope-To: bpf@vger.kernel.org Received: by smtp.migadu.com with ESMTPS id e422fe8beb9831a4; Mon, 21 Sep 2026 15:28:35 +0000 X-Mizu-Trace-ID: e422fe8beb9831a4 X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT Message-ID: <28cfcb20-8be7-42a5-8096-7996447724f7@linux.dev> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2026 08:28:31 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 01/20] bpf: Accept the compiler's exception cleanup table at program load Content-Language: en-GB To: bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org Cc: ast@kernel.org, andrii@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, eddyz87@gmail.com, kernel-team@fb.com, martin.lau@kernel.org, mason@kernel.org, ihor.solodrai@linux.dev References: <20260920054231.865520-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev> <07aee6cc56444ca1d1bf88284b8df9d9fdaa94ddd7f00c50eef6b7a20479632e@mail.kernel.org> From: Yonghong Song In-Reply-To: <07aee6cc56444ca1d1bf88284b8df9d9fdaa94ddd7f00c50eef6b7a20479632e@mail.kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 9/19/26 11:32 PM, bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org wrote: >> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h >> index 6330b7d745c5..a69cc0427575 100644 >> --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h >> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h >> @@ -1669,6 +1669,9 @@ union bpf_attr { >> * verification. >> */ >> __s32 keyring_id; >> + __aligned_u64 cleanup_info; /* exception cleanup table */ >> + __u32 cleanup_info_rec_size; /* userspace bpf_cleanup_info size */ >> + __u32 cleanup_info_cnt; /* number of bpf_cleanup_info records */ >> }; >> >> struct { /* anonymous struct used by BPF_OBJ_* commands */ >> @@ -7599,6 +7602,12 @@ struct bpf_line_info { >> __u32 line_col; >> }; >> >> +struct bpf_cleanup_info { >> + __u32 begin_off; >> + __u32 end_off; >> + __u32 landing_pad_off; >> +}; >> + > This isn't a bug, but would it be worth a short comment on struct > bpf_cleanup_info spelling out that the offsets are instruction indices, > that the range is [begin_off, end_off), and that records must arrive > sorted and non-overlapping with the landing pad outside every range? The above bpf_attr already has related information. > > A producer other than LLVM has to read check_cleanup_info() to discover > the rules, and insn_off in struct bpf_core_relo in the same header is > documented as a byte offset (line 7750: "instruction offset (in > bytes)"), so the unit is genuinely ambiguous at a glance. > > [ ... ] > >> diff --git a/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h >> index 6330b7d745c5..a69cc0427575 100644 >> --- a/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h >> +++ b/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h >> @@ -7599,6 +7602,12 @@ struct bpf_line_info { >> __u32 line_col; >> }; >> >> +struct bpf_cleanup_info { >> + __u32 begin_off; >> + __u32 end_off; >> + __u32 landing_pad_off; >> +}; >> + > Same here. > > > --- > AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug. > See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md > > CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/35492765538