From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ej1-f50.google.com (mail-ej1-f50.google.com [209.85.218.50]) (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 2B2D91D68B for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 23:15:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.218.50 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1705446905; cv=none; b=ll9xSSKW6QPFPXfaGN1FG4zLTabE34fc8HaA9CF82bBvys3ZH744Ax1nQ5YDfqzBURezhrynxLz/lmL1vKu1/rV/OoAO7Uc7P7RFymF4ieJeccvQhD24QPbxOK3z4mUSvbMNnk4idzqDb156lrBr+SXrtR0rbt50w0rUcGNoG8A= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1705446905; c=relaxed/simple; bh=/afTRlcM65OpbW9PuDzNp+BQWpR8b9v81Ck9pmYDyO4=; h=Received:DKIM-Signature:X-Google-DKIM-Signature: X-Gm-Message-State:X-Google-Smtp-Source:X-Received:Received: Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Autocrypt:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:User-Agent: MIME-Version; b=Y75jVjokWPy3yZMVqdoFxmaSobjNClCqylP8fUUlLmHqXbNFKwSp4ohRl6wfR+lF5TTPj5XysxJSO+qkITEz7lgDii1IkFPJkAINfFgtLzcUjEX0Md1N/Vw+SWWRHaadSZPLsAm7qXCjti99uSQGbLc8hPQV4aDlPpuFmkyd1eY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=d3TnVDa2; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.218.50 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="d3TnVDa2" Received: by mail-ej1-f50.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a298accc440so1280253966b.1 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 15:15:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1705446902; x=1706051702; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=mime-version:user-agent:content-transfer-encoding:autocrypt :references:in-reply-to:date:cc:to:from:subject:message-id:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=/afTRlcM65OpbW9PuDzNp+BQWpR8b9v81Ck9pmYDyO4=; b=d3TnVDa2cEY0RYNOGy2kY59/yIAC52XMfGonIXRyIjSKYzJWhDtsg8nglRQA1/76h7 7I5LJdH3nRNYLOGakDNnMWroLqh/3GVbXyNcjgLgrfLsYKu3AkPOv+t1K7/XfcKcwmCS 3WIKkLcUJjNg2UTu/jzQpIl8gMEzzjUHi7qzgWtYETy8CRsFguq/am2BXGOkQ+rwhwPl MwZE94c9ozs3EEzdICiZpl7ID1kRab27JM/QMijV2bpEm6w61T1ANcAtwW89u0uetukR SqdnA07kSPaWtmX901KLTgg9onlko8sm5oGwOJmZLNdK/ztonZ/yjLy69WJYNZKH3jAZ iOoQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1705446902; x=1706051702; h=mime-version:user-agent:content-transfer-encoding:autocrypt :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=/afTRlcM65OpbW9PuDzNp+BQWpR8b9v81Ck9pmYDyO4=; b=nCMubNAC37xniIHAjEVhSZ57QRJ5y6YaKQIlK4ISQQhAnVs067TWPxzny7wc7UVFDK GSICfPsqZCi6qVhRdOGwJ3xnRS5OSVlMAruOeInIfajfTAHSc6AYlefrmjyjneu9O4KP szF+bQ8s3nyMd+JebiskGSeQUfrPRj5F2xoA+DgfvG3nU0SnXxO7NKr3rZmaxdlBJeDo TW/Wvd/cAZgBAWpwtIHxJpG/4FPqqbaFqGIF6S3eZ8Gnnvjplv0YJdFa92udGWiSdN9W kUcvVUsr8WQ1/eiYnnKxS75mAzf/8lFt6eT80bNCeFkwN+BYiSufihjhSPMFpjW7UVPH fIiA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyoTR2m062AH/z1OPEIqSRnohg/Lbdo1GsE5E1WNKXQZA2YlpWe 0ws8FXLGVLfeOpxzaDaoGUo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IE2uEqf9jvmA2yGhTOlKIj0/4LadvnQxmqKsgA32TmSk5lgQSVqDBT19RSP4+As+tGekurHeA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:a4e:b0:a28:7fe8:8b29 with SMTP id be14-20020a1709070a4e00b00a287fe88b29mr5044292ejc.68.1705446902139; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 15:15:02 -0800 (PST) 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 bv9-20020a170906b1c900b00a2bfd60c6a8sm7001062ejb.80.2024.01.16.15.15.01 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 16 Jan 2024 15:15:01 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <5b1caa7f70400e897bafcff489fb9c461f62db98.camel@gmail.com> Subject: Re: asm register constraint. Was: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 2/5] bpf: Introduce "volatile compare" macro From: Eduard Zingerman To: Alexei Starovoitov Cc: "Jose E. Marchesi" , "Jose E. Marchesi" , Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi , Yonghong Song , Daniel Borkmann , Andrii Nakryiko , Martin KaFai Lau , Daniel Xu , John Fastabend , bpf , Kernel Team Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 01:15:00 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <20231221033854.38397-1-alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> <20231221033854.38397-3-alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> <44a9223b6638673487850eb9d70cc01ef58e9d93.camel@gmail.com> <87h6jm6atm.fsf@oracle.com> <87mste4sjv.fsf@oracle.com> <878r4vra87.fsf@oracle.com> <95388269687be49d7896a881eda8aa3bb89e40a4.camel@gmail.com> Autocrypt: addr=eddyz87@gmail.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata=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 nYzhLWGcczc6J71q1Dje0l5vIPaSFOgwmWD4DA+WvuxM/shH4rtWeodbv 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 t1iq+gsfnXbPz5AnS598ScZI1oP7OrPSFJkt/z4acEbOQDQs8aUqrd46PV jsdqGvKnXZxzylux29UTNby4jTlz9pNJM+wPrDRmGfchLDUmf6CffaUYCbu4FiId+9+dcTCDvxbABRy1C3OJ8QY7cxfJ+pEZW18fRJ0XCl/fiV/ecAOfB3HsqgTzAn555h0rkFgay0hAvMU/mAW/CFNSIxV397zm749ZNLA0L2dMy1AKuOqH+/B+/ImBfJMDjmdyJQ8WU/OFRuGLdqOd2oZrA1iuPIa+yUYyZkaZfz/emQwpIL1+Q4p1R/OplA4yc301AqruXXUcVDbEB+joHW3hy5FwK5t5OwTKatrSJBkydSF9zdXy98fYzGniRyRA65P0Ix/8J3BYB4edY2/w0Ip/mdYsYQljBY0A== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.50.3 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Tue, 2024-01-16 at 10:40 -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: [...] > The changes to all three make sense, but they might cause regressions > if they are not synchronized with new llvm. > cilium/tetragon can control the llvm version to some degree, but not self= tests. > Should we add clang macro like __BPF_CPU_VERSION__ and ifdef > different asm style depending on that? > I suspect this "(short)" workaround will still be needed for quite > some time while people upgrade to the latest llvm. > something like __BPF_STRICT_ASM_CONSTRAINT__ ? > Maybe a flag too that can revert to old behavior without warnings? After my changes selftests are passing both with old and new constraint semantics, so such macro definitions / compiler flags are not necessary for selftests. (Although, I have not yet checked the codegen difference, so the absence of the "(short)" thing might be visible there). As for Cilium / Tetragon: I checked verification of the object files with both LLVM versions, but adding compiler flag might make sense. Maybe compiler users should comment?