From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, andrii@kernel.org,
daniel@iogearbox.net, martin.lau@linux.dev, kernel-team@fb.com,
yonghong.song@linux.dev, hffilwlqm@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 4/4] selftests/bpf: validate jit behaviour for tail calls
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 15:10:57 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6d40ddcfbdf1bfecd7280d2a69f96eb66f20e692.camel@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4BzZNN4YViWtv_LR996T4uw86MhcOLLkNFPMgb=Y8qpxK8w@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, 2024-08-15 at 15:07 -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
[...]
> > > Isn't that a bit counter-intuitive and potentially dangerous behavior
> > > for checking disassembly? If my assumption is correct, maybe we should
> > > add some sort of `__jit_x86("...")` placeholder to explicitly mark
> > > that we allow some amount of lines to be skipped, but otherwise be
> > > strict and require matching line-by-line?
> >
> > This is a valid concern.
> > What you suggest with "..." looks good.
>
> I'd add just that for now. _not and _next might be useful in the
> future, but meh.
If we commit to "..." now and decide to add _not and _next in the
future this would make __jit macro special. Which is not ideal, imo.
(on the other hand, tests can always be adjusted).
[...]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-08-15 22:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-09 1:05 [PATCH bpf-next 0/4] __jited_x86 test tag to check x86 assembly after jit Eduard Zingerman
2024-08-09 1:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/4] selftests/bpf: less spam in the log for message matching Eduard Zingerman
2024-08-09 1:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/4] selftests/bpf: utility function to get program disassembly after jit Eduard Zingerman
2024-08-13 16:05 ` Yonghong Song
2024-08-13 22:01 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-08-15 19:27 ` Yonghong Song
2024-08-15 19:34 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-08-15 21:06 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-08-15 21:50 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-08-15 22:04 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-08-19 19:45 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-08-19 21:05 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-08-09 1:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/4] selftests/bpf: __jited_x86 test tag to check x86 assembly " Eduard Zingerman
2024-08-15 21:11 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-08-15 21:48 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-08-09 1:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next 4/4] selftests/bpf: validate jit behaviour for tail calls Eduard Zingerman
2024-08-15 21:15 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-08-15 21:42 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-08-15 22:07 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-08-15 22:10 ` Eduard Zingerman [this message]
2024-08-15 22:14 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-08-15 22:19 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-08-15 21:32 ` Yonghong Song
2024-08-15 21:47 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-08-15 22:09 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-08-15 22:16 ` Eduard Zingerman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=6d40ddcfbdf1bfecd7280d2a69f96eb66f20e692.camel@gmail.com \
--to=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=hffilwlqm@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox