From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-171.mta0.migadu.com (out-171.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.171]) (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 2916D1C20 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 16:32:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.171 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708533134; cv=none; b=BxYT+5lQaIMgFrz1deirDnUmSs9+TN1SnHQlS6IEdD8mZcW8j6JunUFRYAc80wIcc0uu19+22bR74L3nnvWvV8yqR71hjU7Ng7ddFauJB24cQnCRo26Fl5kSqoND/7nADmii41NUhXIpszl37hWpvGN9gF5LFT4k67DkouWNd7I= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708533134; c=relaxed/simple; bh=/hQbMToF7wqGZAgpgp1VO4EDwuBEjPOBsF3lNacAOPw=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=VTPBevEDLa4/J6H7yoKpKbYZyquns1Ursh5r8FlLPfdkjhHQEGMg9QOsKBxI90SFMBSy6tnGKY+e5CVpLxPw86plvTilbo0gMpymrPRReesuxqLjOtZj/4F6zlgRi4GRcBnEORE6UO4YZu/KPKrbxmw3wXyIiiNsAUx9pMTGf6k= 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=Mfya7Drt; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.171 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="Mfya7Drt" Message-ID: <96df18fa-6ce6-412e-bab9-5ca8fb7b0e6f@linux.dev> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1708533130; 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=tRWM2NEtbfOTOKEhH7g1vyTfB0g8Nl18yJ3b4/JRSSA=; b=Mfya7DrtzNPuSQBNkmbWUtvdaV1WLNxHbOyzjYZ52zWlce2sQ9X/J7nZo6J/IfUZknqHUc 67Vx09CZmaJpViehjxejcduDcYKqqYgNFxy7+Q+tw5/3ceFJOnKgJlXxj9B/ZZbjkSFqcy go8p4gtMBrdQl3FBne2S6qm7kaggEL8= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 08:32:05 -0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] Compiled BPF and toolchains Content-Language: en-GB To: "Jose E. Marchesi" , lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org References: <87frxm2hwx.fsf@oracle.com> X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Yonghong Song In-Reply-To: <87frxm2hwx.fsf@oracle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On 2/21/24 3:09 AM, Jose E. Marchesi wrote: > The discussions we had last year in LSFMMBPF about BPF support in GCC > were very useful, and led to more and better interactions between the > BPF GCC maintainers, the BPF clang maintainers and the rest of the BPF > community. This helped a lot to achieve better convergence with clang. > > We think it would be good to repeat the experience this year with a > session where we could discuss particular topics related to compiled BPF > in general, like the toolchain requirements introduced by the new > features being proposed for BPF (such as supporting segmented stacks, It will be shadow stack, as suggested by Alexei, in order to maintain the current seemless support for stack backtracing. > just to mention a recent one) and how to better support these in both > GCC and clang. Another topic worth gcc involvement is potential compiler support for static key in bpf programs. https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAADnVQJ+_+ok_io1_W7e5z_dZhxSqhEFZQkumRgmY4AJRYwW7g@mail.gmail.com/