* [PATCH bpf-next v2] bpf, docs: Explain helper functions
@ 2023-02-06 19:16 Dave Thaler
2023-02-08 15:10 ` [Bpf] " David Vernet
2023-02-12 23:20 ` kernel test robot
0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Dave Thaler @ 2023-02-06 19:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bpf; +Cc: bpf, Dave Thaler
From: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
Add text explaining helper functions.
Note that text about runtime functions (kfuncs) is part of a separate patch,
not this one.
Signed-off-by: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
---
V1 -> V2: addressed comments from Alexei and Stanislav
---
Documentation/bpf/clang-notes.rst | 5 +++++
Documentation/bpf/instruction-set.rst | 22 +++++++++++++++++++++-
2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/clang-notes.rst b/Documentation/bpf/clang-notes.rst
index 528feddf2db..40c6185513a 100644
--- a/Documentation/bpf/clang-notes.rst
+++ b/Documentation/bpf/clang-notes.rst
@@ -20,6 +20,11 @@ Arithmetic instructions
For CPU versions prior to 3, Clang v7.0 and later can enable ``BPF_ALU`` support with
``-Xclang -target-feature -Xclang +alu32``. In CPU version 3, support is automatically included.
+Reserved instructions
+====================
+
+Clang will generate the reserved ``BPF_CALL | BPF_X | BPF_JMP`` (0x8d) instruction if ``-O0`` is used.
+
Atomic operations
=================
diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/instruction-set.rst b/Documentation/bpf/instruction-set.rst
index 2d3fe59bd26..89a13f1cdeb 100644
--- a/Documentation/bpf/instruction-set.rst
+++ b/Documentation/bpf/instruction-set.rst
@@ -191,7 +191,7 @@ BPF_JSET 0x40 PC += off if dst & src
BPF_JNE 0x50 PC += off if dst != src
BPF_JSGT 0x60 PC += off if dst > src signed
BPF_JSGE 0x70 PC += off if dst >= src signed
-BPF_CALL 0x80 function call
+BPF_CALL 0x80 function call see `Helper functions`_
BPF_EXIT 0x90 function / program return BPF_JMP only
BPF_JLT 0xa0 PC += off if dst < src unsigned
BPF_JLE 0xb0 PC += off if dst <= src unsigned
@@ -202,6 +202,26 @@ BPF_JSLE 0xd0 PC += off if dst <= src signed
The eBPF program needs to store the return value into register R0 before doing a
BPF_EXIT.
+Helper functions
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Helper functions are a concept whereby BPF programs can call into a
+set of function calls exposed by the runtime. Each helper
+function is identified by an integer used in a ``BPF_CALL`` instruction.
+The available helper functions may differ for each program type.
+
+Conceptually, each helper function is implemented with a commonly shared function
+signature defined as:
+
+ u64 function(u64 r1, u64 r2, u64 r3, u64 r4, u64 r5)
+
+In actuality, each helper function is defined as taking between 0 and 5 arguments,
+with the remaining registers being ignored. The definition of a helper function
+is responsible for specifying the type (e.g., integer, pointer, etc.) of the value returned,
+the number of arguments, and the type of each argument.
+
+Note that ``BPF_CALL | BPF_X | BPF_JMP`` (0x8d), where the helper function integer
+would be read from a specified register, is reserved and currently not permitted.
Load and store instructions
===========================
--
2.33.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bpf] [PATCH bpf-next v2] bpf, docs: Explain helper functions
2023-02-06 19:16 [PATCH bpf-next v2] bpf, docs: Explain helper functions Dave Thaler
@ 2023-02-08 15:10 ` David Vernet
2023-02-08 17:26 ` Dave Thaler
2023-02-12 23:20 ` kernel test robot
1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: David Vernet @ 2023-02-08 15:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Thaler; +Cc: bpf, bpf, Dave Thaler
On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 07:16:47PM +0000, Dave Thaler wrote:
> From: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
>
> Add text explaining helper functions.
> Note that text about runtime functions (kfuncs) is part of a separate patch,
> not this one.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
> ---
> V1 -> V2: addressed comments from Alexei and Stanislav
> ---
> Documentation/bpf/clang-notes.rst | 5 +++++
> Documentation/bpf/instruction-set.rst | 22 +++++++++++++++++++++-
> 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/clang-notes.rst b/Documentation/bpf/clang-notes.rst
> index 528feddf2db..40c6185513a 100644
> --- a/Documentation/bpf/clang-notes.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/bpf/clang-notes.rst
> @@ -20,6 +20,11 @@ Arithmetic instructions
> For CPU versions prior to 3, Clang v7.0 and later can enable ``BPF_ALU`` support with
> ``-Xclang -target-feature -Xclang +alu32``. In CPU version 3, support is automatically included.
>
> +Reserved instructions
> +====================
small nit: Missing a =
> +
> +Clang will generate the reserved ``BPF_CALL | BPF_X | BPF_JMP`` (0x8d) instruction if ``-O0`` is used.
Are we calling this out here to say that BPF_CALL in clang -O0 builds is
not supported? That would seem to be the case given that we say that
BPF_CALL | BPF_X | BPF_JMP in reserved and not permitted in
instruction-set.rst. If that's not the case, can we add a bit more
verbiage here describing why this is done / why it's interesting and/or
relevant to the reader?
FWIW, most of our selftests don't seem to compile with clang -O0.
> +Note that ``BPF_CALL | BPF_X | BPF_JMP`` (0x8d), where the helper function integer
> +would be read from a specified register, is reserved and currently not permitted.
> +
> Atomic operations
> =================
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/instruction-set.rst b/Documentation/bpf/instruction-set.rst
> index 2d3fe59bd26..89a13f1cdeb 100644
> --- a/Documentation/bpf/instruction-set.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/bpf/instruction-set.rst
> @@ -191,7 +191,7 @@ BPF_JSET 0x40 PC += off if dst & src
> BPF_JNE 0x50 PC += off if dst != src
> BPF_JSGT 0x60 PC += off if dst > src signed
> BPF_JSGE 0x70 PC += off if dst >= src signed
> -BPF_CALL 0x80 function call
> +BPF_CALL 0x80 function call see `Helper functions`_
> BPF_EXIT 0x90 function / program return BPF_JMP only
> BPF_JLT 0xa0 PC += off if dst < src unsigned
> BPF_JLE 0xb0 PC += off if dst <= src unsigned
> @@ -202,6 +202,26 @@ BPF_JSLE 0xd0 PC += off if dst <= src signed
> The eBPF program needs to store the return value into register R0 before doing a
> BPF_EXIT.
>
> +Helper functions
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +
> +Helper functions are a concept whereby BPF programs can call into a
> +set of function calls exposed by the runtime. Each helper
> +function is identified by an integer used in a ``BPF_CALL`` instruction.
> +The available helper functions may differ for each program type.
> +
> +Conceptually, each helper function is implemented with a commonly shared function
> +signature defined as:
> +
> + u64 function(u64 r1, u64 r2, u64 r3, u64 r4, u64 r5)
> +
> +In actuality, each helper function is defined as taking between 0 and 5 arguments,
> +with the remaining registers being ignored. The definition of a helper function
> +is responsible for specifying the type (e.g., integer, pointer, etc.) of the value returned,
> +the number of arguments, and the type of each argument.
> +
> +Note that ``BPF_CALL | BPF_X | BPF_JMP`` (0x8d), where the helper function integer
> +would be read from a specified register, is reserved and currently not permitted.
>
> Load and store instructions
> ===========================
> --
> 2.33.4
>
> --
> Bpf mailing list
> Bpf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bpf
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* RE: [Bpf] [PATCH bpf-next v2] bpf, docs: Explain helper functions
2023-02-08 15:10 ` [Bpf] " David Vernet
@ 2023-02-08 17:26 ` Dave Thaler
2023-02-08 17:29 ` David Vernet
2023-02-08 17:31 ` Alexei Starovoitov
0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Dave Thaler @ 2023-02-08 17:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Vernet, Dave Thaler; +Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, bpf@ietf.org
David Vernet wrote:
> > +Reserved instructions
> > +====================
>
> small nit: Missing a =
Ack.
> > +Clang will generate the reserved ``BPF_CALL | BPF_X | BPF_JMP`` (0x8d)
> instruction if ``-O0`` is used.
>
> Are we calling this out here to say that BPF_CALL in clang -O0 builds is not
> supported? That would seem to be the case given that we say that BPF_CALL
> | BPF_X | BPF_JMP in reserved and not permitted in instruction-set.rst.
Yes, exactly. I could update the language to add something like
"... so BPF_CALL in clang -O0 builds is not supported".
Dave
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bpf] [PATCH bpf-next v2] bpf, docs: Explain helper functions
2023-02-08 17:26 ` Dave Thaler
@ 2023-02-08 17:29 ` David Vernet
2023-02-08 17:31 ` Alexei Starovoitov
1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: David Vernet @ 2023-02-08 17:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Thaler; +Cc: Dave Thaler, bpf@vger.kernel.org, bpf@ietf.org
On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 05:26:34PM +0000, Dave Thaler wrote:
> David Vernet wrote:
> > > +Reserved instructions
> > > +====================
> >
> > small nit: Missing a =
>
> Ack.
>
> > > +Clang will generate the reserved ``BPF_CALL | BPF_X | BPF_JMP`` (0x8d)
> > instruction if ``-O0`` is used.
> >
> > Are we calling this out here to say that BPF_CALL in clang -O0 builds is not
> > supported? That would seem to be the case given that we say that BPF_CALL
> > | BPF_X | BPF_JMP in reserved and not permitted in instruction-set.rst.
>
> Yes, exactly. I could update the language to add something like
> "... so BPF_CALL in clang -O0 builds is not supported".
Gotcha, that sounds good to me. Thanks for being so thorough in
documenting all of this tribal knowledge.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bpf] [PATCH bpf-next v2] bpf, docs: Explain helper functions
2023-02-08 17:26 ` Dave Thaler
2023-02-08 17:29 ` David Vernet
@ 2023-02-08 17:31 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-02-08 17:40 ` David Vernet
1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Alexei Starovoitov @ 2023-02-08 17:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Thaler; +Cc: David Vernet, Dave Thaler, bpf@vger.kernel.org, bpf@ietf.org
On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 9:26 AM Dave Thaler
<dthaler=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> David Vernet wrote:
> > > +Reserved instructions
> > > +====================
> >
> > small nit: Missing a =
>
> Ack.
>
> > > +Clang will generate the reserved ``BPF_CALL | BPF_X | BPF_JMP`` (0x8d)
> > instruction if ``-O0`` is used.
> >
> > Are we calling this out here to say that BPF_CALL in clang -O0 builds is not
> > supported? That would seem to be the case given that we say that BPF_CALL
> > | BPF_X | BPF_JMP in reserved and not permitted in instruction-set.rst.
>
> Yes, exactly. I could update the language to add something like
> "... so BPF_CALL in clang -O0 builds is not supported".
That will not be a correct statement.
BPF_CALL is a valid insn regardless of optimization flags.
BPF_CALLX will be a valid insn when the verifier support is added.
Compilers need to make a choice which insn to use on a case by case basis.
When compilers have no choice, but to use call by register they will
use callx. That what happens with = (void *)1 hack that we use for
helpers.
It can happen with -O2 just as well.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bpf] [PATCH bpf-next v2] bpf, docs: Explain helper functions
2023-02-08 17:31 ` Alexei Starovoitov
@ 2023-02-08 17:40 ` David Vernet
2023-02-08 17:45 ` Dave Thaler
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: David Vernet @ 2023-02-08 17:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexei Starovoitov
Cc: Dave Thaler, Dave Thaler, bpf@vger.kernel.org, bpf@ietf.org
On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 09:31:18AM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 9:26 AM Dave Thaler
> <dthaler=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> >
> > David Vernet wrote:
> > > > +Reserved instructions
> > > > +====================
> > >
> > > small nit: Missing a =
> >
> > Ack.
> >
> > > > +Clang will generate the reserved ``BPF_CALL | BPF_X | BPF_JMP`` (0x8d)
> > > instruction if ``-O0`` is used.
> > >
> > > Are we calling this out here to say that BPF_CALL in clang -O0 builds is not
> > > supported? That would seem to be the case given that we say that BPF_CALL
> > > | BPF_X | BPF_JMP in reserved and not permitted in instruction-set.rst.
> >
> > Yes, exactly. I could update the language to add something like
> > "... so BPF_CALL in clang -O0 builds is not supported".
>
> That will not be a correct statement.
> BPF_CALL is a valid insn regardless of optimization flags.
> BPF_CALLX will be a valid insn when the verifier support is added.
> Compilers need to make a choice which insn to use on a case by case basis.
> When compilers have no choice, but to use call by register they will
> use callx. That what happens with = (void *)1 hack that we use for
> helpers.
> It can happen with -O2 just as well.
In that case, I suggest we update the verbiage in instruction-set.rst to
say:
Note that ``BPF_CALL | BPF_X | BPF_JMP`` (0x8d), where the helper
function integer would be read from a specified register, is not
currently supported by the verifier. Any programs with this instruction
will fail to load until such support is added.
And then we can update this section to say something similar, or just
remove it altogether per Alexei's point that it's an implementation
detail of the compiler which could change at any time.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* RE: [Bpf] [PATCH bpf-next v2] bpf, docs: Explain helper functions
2023-02-08 17:40 ` David Vernet
@ 2023-02-08 17:45 ` Dave Thaler
2023-02-09 16:04 ` David Vernet
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Dave Thaler @ 2023-02-08 17:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Vernet, Alexei Starovoitov
Cc: Dave Thaler, bpf@vger.kernel.org, bpf@ietf.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 9:40 AM
> To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
> Cc: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>; Dave Thaler
> <dthaler1968@googlemail.com>; bpf@vger.kernel.org; bpf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Bpf] [PATCH bpf-next v2] bpf, docs: Explain helper functions
>
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 09:31:18AM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 9:26 AM Dave Thaler
> > <dthaler=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > David Vernet wrote:
> > > > > +Reserved instructions
> > > > > +====================
> > > >
> > > > small nit: Missing a =
> > >
> > > Ack.
> > >
> > > > > +Clang will generate the reserved ``BPF_CALL | BPF_X | BPF_JMP``
> > > > > +(0x8d)
> > > > instruction if ``-O0`` is used.
> > > >
> > > > Are we calling this out here to say that BPF_CALL in clang -O0
> > > > builds is not supported? That would seem to be the case given that
> > > > we say that BPF_CALL
> > > > | BPF_X | BPF_JMP in reserved and not permitted in instruction-set.rst.
> > >
> > > Yes, exactly. I could update the language to add something like
> > > "... so BPF_CALL in clang -O0 builds is not supported".
> >
> > That will not be a correct statement.
> > BPF_CALL is a valid insn regardless of optimization flags.
> > BPF_CALLX will be a valid insn when the verifier support is added.
> > Compilers need to make a choice which insn to use on a case by case basis.
> > When compilers have no choice, but to use call by register they will
> > use callx. That what happens with = (void *)1 hack that we use for
> > helpers.
> > It can happen with -O2 just as well.
>
> In that case, I suggest we update the verbiage in instruction-set.rst to
> say:
>
> Note that ``BPF_CALL | BPF_X | BPF_JMP`` (0x8d), where the helper function
> integer would be read from a specified register, is not currently supported by
> the verifier. Any programs with this instruction will fail to load until such
> support is added.
The problem with that wording is that it implies that there is "the" verifier,
whereas the point of standard documentation (since this file is also being used
to generate the IETF spec) is to keep statements about any specific verifier
or compiler out of instruction-set.rst. That's why there's separate files like
clang-notes.rst for the clang compiler, etc. The instruction set rst is,
in my view, should apply across all compilers, all verifiers, all runtimes, etc.
It could potentially say certain things are optional to support, but there is
a distinction between "defined" vs "reserved" where it currently means
such support is "reserved" not "defined".
Dave
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bpf] [PATCH bpf-next v2] bpf, docs: Explain helper functions
2023-02-08 17:45 ` Dave Thaler
@ 2023-02-09 16:04 ` David Vernet
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: David Vernet @ 2023-02-09 16:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Thaler
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov, Dave Thaler, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
bpf@ietf.org
On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 05:45:59PM +0000, Dave Thaler wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 9:40 AM
> > To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
> > Cc: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>; Dave Thaler
> > <dthaler1968@googlemail.com>; bpf@vger.kernel.org; bpf@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [Bpf] [PATCH bpf-next v2] bpf, docs: Explain helper functions
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 09:31:18AM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 9:26 AM Dave Thaler
> > > <dthaler=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > David Vernet wrote:
> > > > > > +Reserved instructions
> > > > > > +====================
> > > > >
> > > > > small nit: Missing a =
> > > >
> > > > Ack.
> > > >
> > > > > > +Clang will generate the reserved ``BPF_CALL | BPF_X | BPF_JMP``
> > > > > > +(0x8d)
> > > > > instruction if ``-O0`` is used.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are we calling this out here to say that BPF_CALL in clang -O0
> > > > > builds is not supported? That would seem to be the case given that
> > > > > we say that BPF_CALL
> > > > > | BPF_X | BPF_JMP in reserved and not permitted in instruction-set.rst.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, exactly. I could update the language to add something like
> > > > "... so BPF_CALL in clang -O0 builds is not supported".
> > >
> > > That will not be a correct statement.
> > > BPF_CALL is a valid insn regardless of optimization flags.
> > > BPF_CALLX will be a valid insn when the verifier support is added.
> > > Compilers need to make a choice which insn to use on a case by case basis.
> > > When compilers have no choice, but to use call by register they will
> > > use callx. That what happens with = (void *)1 hack that we use for
> > > helpers.
> > > It can happen with -O2 just as well.
> >
> > In that case, I suggest we update the verbiage in instruction-set.rst to
> > say:
> >
> > Note that ``BPF_CALL | BPF_X | BPF_JMP`` (0x8d), where the helper function
> > integer would be read from a specified register, is not currently supported by
> > the verifier. Any programs with this instruction will fail to load until such
> > support is added.
>
> The problem with that wording is that it implies that there is "the" verifier,
> whereas the point of standard documentation (since this file is also being used
> to generate the IETF spec) is to keep statements about any specific verifier
> or compiler out of instruction-set.rst. That's why there's separate files like
Yes, good point.
> clang-notes.rst for the clang compiler, etc. The instruction set rst is,
> in my view, should apply across all compilers, all verifiers, all runtimes, etc.
> It could potentially say certain things are optional to support, but there is
> a distinction between "defined" vs "reserved" where it currently means
> such support is "reserved" not "defined".
That makes sense. IMO we should just say that the instruction is valid
then, and not make a distinction. 'reserved' should imply that the bits
for the instruction in question have no definition whatsoever, e.g.
reserved bits in control registers in x86, etc. In this case, the
instruction is valid, we just haven't chosen to implement support for it
yet in the Linux verifier. That's par for the course for implementing
standards. Usually we don't implement something until it's needed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2] bpf, docs: Explain helper functions
2023-02-06 19:16 [PATCH bpf-next v2] bpf, docs: Explain helper functions Dave Thaler
2023-02-08 15:10 ` [Bpf] " David Vernet
@ 2023-02-12 23:20 ` kernel test robot
1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: kernel test robot @ 2023-02-12 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Thaler, bpf; +Cc: oe-kbuild-all, bpf, Dave Thaler
Hi Dave,
Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve:
[auto build test WARNING on bpf-next/master]
url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Dave-Thaler/bpf-docs-Explain-helper-functions/20230207-031845
base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git master
patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230206191647.2075-1-dthaler1968%40googlemail.com
patch subject: [PATCH bpf-next v2] bpf, docs: Explain helper functions
reproduce:
# https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commit/b579d93fed53b16ad7241911226cbeb3b42f8266
git remote add linux-review https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux
git fetch --no-tags linux-review Dave-Thaler/bpf-docs-Explain-helper-functions/20230207-031845
git checkout b579d93fed53b16ad7241911226cbeb3b42f8266
make menuconfig
# enable CONFIG_COMPILE_TEST, CONFIG_WARN_MISSING_DOCUMENTS, CONFIG_WARN_ABI_ERRORS
make htmldocs
If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag where applicable
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
| Link: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202302130706.NBSii5FS-lkp@intel.com/
All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
>> Documentation/bpf/clang-notes.rst:24: WARNING: Title underline too short.
vim +24 Documentation/bpf/clang-notes.rst
22
23 Reserved instructions
> 24 ====================
25
--
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-02-12 23:21 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-02-06 19:16 [PATCH bpf-next v2] bpf, docs: Explain helper functions Dave Thaler
2023-02-08 15:10 ` [Bpf] " David Vernet
2023-02-08 17:26 ` Dave Thaler
2023-02-08 17:29 ` David Vernet
2023-02-08 17:31 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-02-08 17:40 ` David Vernet
2023-02-08 17:45 ` Dave Thaler
2023-02-09 16:04 ` David Vernet
2023-02-12 23:20 ` kernel test robot
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox