From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=209.85.215.172 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1793218627; b=x66r62ZTFX8xAEq3QajMq7H3nLTRtQwFDDFwVtdi6uknfGtSbm6aTt+EulviS0yYb641 za9prRCVus9zMdUjKuFYY/dh1m2GxP8sjAt0JJLd9MQNCara7w5iUL8iOkOKSglawm+J/ d3KbIxn30aHvZnTNeBJ0PHKTov81rDN5KD2TgF3FIYehRuSJAsPjRETFMYQh2HZy0BvF+ QdUC7/dosdJPi8TOZh1ttYCXMls7SsCcXfBZ+qWNGY8yOT92z+4IlaRA73CPM9c71i1nB 2+IAn3Aip7cSIZfScrV3nm5ItYeDmKTUtbPQVUJO+VM2RLOa9M+plmrtuq5dzZbcA7g== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1793218627; h=DMARC-Filter:Received:DKIM-Signature:X-Google-DKIM-Signature: X-Gm-Message-State:X-Gm-Gg:X-Received:Received:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id:Cc:Subject:From:To:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; bh=dSMkn2sWOTz70cexfrd27F1/JjDZDTCWFfIcPofUanw=; b=kdkFCBLLwYD9fQ/JTltJzS1T6HMqcwd24tGLUwm5DnqFbx8rSfuwSkltCFkK+5QF/3qf qtKLYDX3Kul2uzVHbwGw/ZOYVVvPeKlfEjkEst+aZTzXKn9pGXlWNmG21yAH1gt66hU5b LY1coNXo0izbEv1l1Jd48WJx70B+utguGus4QDyr/RGQ13BhvOSxafC25YMg4Gc0EP+bG AJJXvr0t5t50WSQKNEc1616Lv4Kmx4FgqSlsfaFkWAovAggaQdnIkBs6E2oMxjCRlRftJ OyOdGbqoLrzzfQOJWrrgqyZwofqOSiVh7jfjocD6lOR+2fHBV7M7vbW33iAgfcsG+yg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20260707 header.b=PxB5Fgln; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=209.85.215.172 Received: from mail-pg1-f172.google.com (mail-pg1-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 890DF606A31C for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2026 20:17:07 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 smtp.subspace.kernel.org 890DF606A31C 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, unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20260707 header.b=PxB5Fgln Received: by mail-pg1-f172.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-cdab8873d9dso604107a12.1 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2026 13:17:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20260707; t=1793218627; x=1793823427; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:references:in-reply-to:to :from:subject:cc:message-id:date:content-type:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=dSMkn2sWOTz70cexfrd27F1/JjDZDTCWFfIcPofUanw=; b=PxB5FglnjcjBtlTnc90j6ue1sLL2lmdBBRbRYKdrbAoflG9djxBOajiA3NJCHMQ7yd cha4F9zflIvORV32Vi/41qnpMIfu/penj9YMib8NJF++lrFm72knsguYtfFkotDSno8n Oze6K+YhjkPvRcq0iTgEGIojmAUaR+ym7x8TJQTcwPOZR6ZfvU9/ukw8Awy9/x8K8lct Koz/RHlAwAFkGTTVEPeV0KuVH6qC0+IyS5h8b6ZNnfcug0zJtqv8+I/rXtaedYFAVeNV rJEFjYhh+UksyYoUhnNyAmX9Lg7sXBMDvEhFgmQmO9vFZ0qu3wWInXzw5FdWL2OJLCdH 5FYg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20260707; t=1793218627; x=1793823427; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:references:in-reply-to:to :from:subject:cc:message-id:date:content-type:x-gm-gg :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to :content-type; bh=dSMkn2sWOTz70cexfrd27F1/JjDZDTCWFfIcPofUanw=; b=K4hkGzFDnevzObXga7mA3pm9uIYmbQ0gzaCKGScfEAWTFimbeCcRY/y/jjvoDtWI0L siqk+6I4e4+ho5+xMkJuSnODISAoAjr/ThIUKx4uWzbFxND5kB1PqO7u97xAOwNJMRvy BMYQ1rAAI8CEvVfs+My9dpWmavtZCLk5oxa6y8AcU1TtBRrtlue+Ex9Q254rcnnhD22o Qc2XpPDX1b8SdLKdNBSNPRJ/hZ3VenLvPRPvyrUAOtVaI/7yBLeRLtm1MOVe2dzFCbw+ XmXvxLNKqKGcMHViZTrKSA8LyNkYdkGoC5AOs6tPuIOk3q+Gv9i4xs/BTctW2VBwGHyP IJKg== X-Gm-Message-State: AFq9FYKMCN2UXnpUinIqN8aXJOgvL7zp57YD6yXLofAfEfxnva7G+3Dk 2LK3VWYKJa0EKgmMQ5ByFRL9HBQikPPGiY7nNuk8fazgU5tLf8VwRpzx X-Gm-Gg: AYBFou3N6m7TY5K+08i+xUl29ELV85HJyzBwuZA+SEfFD+1XzfCq1SONKyI/9wL1Z72 MGpFTqOoQnzqEXuh+9/bj4s/JcgoKBO+3KmstQe6CYNWvP1b00n29GXzWZEwKKDEv6KubR1TWp/ wZSvi/RnfBESWP18ORbX9sW8Go6G1g0em5oIM3t9fh9HAR5phDkfZmysFlbv7dxfxmTJ0Wef8lw 2xLqDCGZOHb31NlcYmZzLI3mrTn5EYPNv3LhVt8yN/UF2ioNWCHIhaKSC7Cny/OiCrpIVQ8NmbC JM7TzW07iWGPY2iK5E0Jn6mmAuohTY9GiLn2ALJYRvNIY1czJG+ZpvteAXefnFfDe6DGxwj7Udp heXNRxp/hibiWAmBfK5IEsavansEK3aweomNoT4rfPS2QytoVnx99lNKtwh78w6JI77IDIszY3c HiHHrg6lxQAifTUfFmS+pmhC/jUoGJYD24OznKkX7cb4+YtLVua7ZTJ/3Hbf63HbhVHKip06qUN 7M+vIp1Ey7hsJYcDfoZ4hLcKbhzLbEzW2LNOxQd46Ou+794Ky/7u33d0/rWUtq4pdsvghaECgAb C5IngSAWNtzslaTTzX1tOHIGN7nuXquC7KwLQDofyqFIl3MSmw1q2JfITSmurpwA8aNniZa8Y2n XqrcOrqm7Z0a1b+aIPRpFg855T8cORticSw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:224f:b0:3ac:a7ee:6760 with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-3ae57f637d9mr2382708a91.23.1793218626767; Wed, 28 Oct 2026 13:17:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([153.61.198.246]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 98e67ed59e1d1-3ae6f01e8a5sm324003a91.0.2026.10.28.13.17.04 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 28 Oct 2026 13:17:05 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2026 20:17:04 +0000 Message-Id: Cc: , "Andrii Nakryiko" , "Daniel Borkmann" , "Eduard Zingerman" , "Emil Tsalapatis" , "Ihor Solodrai" , , Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next v1 00/11] Unwinding for synchronous callbacks From: "Alexei Starovoitov" To: "Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi" In-Reply-To: References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 On Wed, Oct 28, 2026 at 03:20 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote: > On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 at 06:06, Alexei Starovoitov > wrote: >> I feel that you're too attached to bpf_throw concept. >> The code was quite intrusive earlier and it is still today. >> I told my agents that bpf_throw is a dead end. sorry. >> I really think it's not a kernel job to solve it. > > Huh? This set is about making unwind_goto / unwind_exit work. Sorry. Mixed it up. I meant it in the "Eliminate spill overhead for bpf_throw()" thread. I don't see the point doing any work for bpf_throw(). imo it's mainly in the way of any verifier work. I'd rather delete all the bpf_throw related code and make it nop. It didn't get any traction. Originally it was a mechanism to enable bpf_assert() which in turn was an idea to stop fighting the verifier. That didn't materialize. So when I see the title "Eliminate spill overhead for bpf_throw" it makes me react the way I did... in the wrong thread :(