From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-172.mta0.migadu.com (out-172.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.172]) (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 08A4438C2DF for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2026 21:11:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776114663; cv=none; b=oO755PwAWUQ698C4tB5d4eSEejxZc7Tekhl16YXO983LZWDwMlCr60rmDRnjs+K8sBBQng/YWLY5QQuv6IZB9HgQzdB07+3MrIzzY6paCjd6KIfy6O+ICdXnrC9d5QKHizEXlCkOL4G7G+4Wesn+d6XuJhgR5PRawSG9B3HWwHM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776114663; c=relaxed/simple; bh=0zQ7nmr21fDAthgDHtT5MG9brM4iY5/RlvWDWslHz9E=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=XVPxLQHsGkv69ERkKNVPLcHpjB3WEFpSBZWZqPJB7H4gLmD/iRBd/XD9vGmnZIhfs77rg0HLQOW+1gjyGa9QdQD7pd3QTsm+auQb6hfZxZ23oOFy/BsITEVBQCExdJiGfHjD801UiaGWO8Eypc97JF7ubCrr/juOKyqeyRFI4GM= 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=dRvGhhlY; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.172 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="dRvGhhlY" Message-ID: <7cd7892e-0a6a-4790-b42e-d85693f54a26@linux.dev> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1776114658; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=i0awaSKOG3/IBOrgNCWh6DMjOEC/iI/nLzVxdzPEZSo=; b=dRvGhhlY5M5utNaJ9FgTHOnmX1EA9dB428NiV/h+HWhNPmIkjL2a5kt1jYa2wBIpOf7mpt agdnO86MX3PNspWGS+qBt4y6T/fC2ZDkaHU5UBHcPgu2cnURXiWY/1iaqoCWHp/kQOAeqB VJJEPBVR9PJKYp67sNr9RWhI/Xoe/u8= Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2026 14:10:53 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 15/18] bpf,x86: Implement JIT support for stack arguments Content-Language: en-GB To: Alexei Starovoitov Cc: bpf , Alexei Starovoitov , Andrii Nakryiko , Daniel Borkmann , "Jose E . Marchesi" , Kernel Team , Martin KaFai Lau References: <20260412045826.254200-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev> <20260412050033.267815-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev> <281485db-073e-45b6-8929-dad36fea5f87@linux.dev> <8c205cc8-4c59-4c1d-a845-c647b2574d4e@linux.dev> X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Yonghong Song In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On 4/13/26 1:38 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 1:32 PM Yonghong Song wrote: >> >> >> On 4/13/26 12:59 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 10:26 AM Yonghong Song wrote: >>>> Yes, we can do something like below: >>>> >>>> case BPF_ST | BPF_MEM | BPF_DW: >>>> - if (adjust_stack_arg_off && insn->off == -outgoing_stack_arg_depth) { >>>> + if (dst_reg == BPF_REG_STACK_ARG_BASE && insn->off == -outgoing_stack_arg_depth) { >>> Something like that, but use BPF_REG_ARG_PTR name ? >>> here and in the verifier? >> We have a bunch of ARG_PTR_* (e.g. ARG_PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE, ...). >> So maybe BPF_REG_STACK_ARG_PTR to distinguish ARG_PTR_*? >> BPF_REG_STACK_ARG_BASE_PTR seems a better name as it does represents >> the base pointer for stack arguments of a particular function. >> But BPF_REG_STACK_ARG_BASE_PTR seems too long so BPF_REG_STACK_ARG_PTR? > both are too long. > I reacted to BPF_REG_STACK_ARG_BASE. Since it was already too long. > BPF_REG_PARAMS ? BPF_REG_PARAMS should be okay considering we do not want a longer name.