From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-dy2-f12.google.com (mail-dy2-f12.google.com [74.125.229.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB01C56B866 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2026 22:00:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=74.125.229.12 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790200843; cv=none; b=sQyA0QfteM2EkHsAhbqaDCPHiyH7uekEZRUMSN5yEWm0PznTcl1VGIg1EplTo90ss8IUICj6Qcp3f3KHvQ7Yi6wEIPJWvEbrRJrzQOw7d3k6ZfUq0bknDiYvQjKOXWRY2DP76A5geM7PKNXrRcVHloiRQOikyWQSgiUg6OIACKI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790200843; c=relaxed/simple; bh=QS6x7vBk6pbkwzMVcZvNDHmyv7AtHlEpYouQGhTP3a4=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=Og75XTs5X/u3zqJZIMpBYBPG6l2yDVnYMiUYkMXiVnCNhhGA6koA6lTNhVFHam9xSlUxuneaO8M2MBt3q0fJjLFVUz/Eewh3NpZ0zkr8cEe9teM/ooXWZsqScR5x8N2D8d49E/mvZxc37LhvgQGA8pMKBfcFX/6sUTkvxi9Si70= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=JJ2OAPwF; arc=none smtp.client-ip=74.125.229.12 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) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="JJ2OAPwF" Received: by mail-dy2-f12.google.com with SMTP id 5a478bee46e88-32dbbe82e13so1277189eec.0 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2026 15:00:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20251104; t=1790200841; x=1790805641; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=mime-version:user-agent:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :references:in-reply-to:date:cc:to:from:subject:message-id:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=QS6x7vBk6pbkwzMVcZvNDHmyv7AtHlEpYouQGhTP3a4=; b=JJ2OAPwFQMLMc3Gi0bEcm9XOG0O3dDwLaBK/49twZibxEMkQlw0vPvwXBzkKXXKnp9 0wvJi4pdOtlXp34ELAlrccw/BZTAwxmKUNC00RB1IdWqxProMPQwxeY4xefHj9AJZUmV glh2ZexwcaVF3fyWEJSjxxfxf6LSpEZeLBHGrcNSSkP9msa1MUG6vaXWJg9Kq3XTG3cf OL9rv3RjS4OofwgRZcvlZOm6rWwutq/z4b2ThsdxMeaFzND5KR8drx2xuTE5Ted5D2u3 WYrQ9hc2kQJcfbM+ApU5iW5r7lT8GzTXD9NlJm/73kzFZvyuWmN8HcrMw2pR+0+yQ69g qN/g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20260707; t=1790200841; x=1790805641; h=mime-version:user-agent:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :references:in-reply-to:date:cc:to:from:subject:message-id:x-gm-gg :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to :content-type; bh=QS6x7vBk6pbkwzMVcZvNDHmyv7AtHlEpYouQGhTP3a4=; b=upMbTmK5zeAx4FdeW4nWz83mHB/Pg9jUywH61E4tNBW8sxaloF8/m153EQNFWJYHyS 45vAh2mDim1/YyUK1OlRWcoRZbC9fUDmjMOxUD6/UdetbD6tfWlDxe5Dht5XkNWPxZ/e 2g90ypxW5wg6l8u/fjbkJz8dCJ1fIFW8M4nPtd1hVdQCtscMrvfKLbMFhSbhKUh1n5x7 Yas5MkPYAvdvhPXpGmfq++gfuQpYRs7i3FAiwysUplhBRmfm1gIVVbujwNiXnTE1E+Wr sF4cFvI2rSwlCdTksisY7JO/LGiFllv4aHjwNpmFm9T5caorWBoPxB6A/E5Q0/NxuGGI Vjxw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AKwUvBy6wb57N+Qo34H3dup/fXaGp6oVUI84euZtFZvoMJKRrUkX6Tj9duf0VZzT3BU37Ks/2aU=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AFuF++kSEzMb/GCdUdpZ277r3EeZnX8jR/+cV5L5uzX7j03pG4J1HiKd oZuqVulc78NXgLL9XdiMnE4JvnsZsbz/KolOq0dK1HWJm390sR6nyk/6 X-Gm-Gg: AYBFou2C2tWRENxtOuPtNizJXltEP9KTKJx47xAoa4Wr8WQxCQoWViP1gwHrg4e96a9 wcOVgB+QXMXDURA4Ky2yQq7tulNcHenUiyLH9rWRxhNorUk5bNyV/w0SPv9TxQsG7VjzPAf83Rf TuBe+CguoWfevGlfIEEg+WWWKBr8I17bRJp5zbUMTIoT/MKBDrAhlxmUL7toDq9pUAGYdewJUmo XPKTaeCLOu0uQPHBgBMtdw+NU5CJmoQjhJ+Ta0WoEbwYSPbW7r3tKvOnXyr1IWOaDkgfcQwz10h gHGc0RamKUPxRfKWkYlO8WoAKgHP38jd2PkBLojmOTuSA1fab3IoCEFUxZwV40aMjFJHCdErkAz 9fCQBMKi4mYczNzZX/A/aDoXCrCdlb0AbgtRPs6dMhsuwwOXiKc6Q5JhKzUDXM67lVY1JKr9rqq LMlp+rPNVMnS7gOivsxyYd6Nw5s6W7b4MmsYtO5XB+WaXS4xJ5BY8GILGngTTDmgmqSk4dSMkwJ /sgapy3Kg/NsdcLcgEbmcK5Zu6Fv1PSBzp9aH+xMN3DrZ0C0V+kkJtdASnAu0sR+Z7U X-Received: by 2002:a05:693c:66db:20b0:33c:3f3:cb9e with SMTP id 5a478bee46e88-34004892378mr326237eec.16.1790200840059; Wed, 23 Sep 2026 15:00:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2a03:83e0:115c:1:179a:a128:9d0d:40be? ([2620:10d:c090:500::5:48f8]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5a478bee46e88-33e96d47157sm7144763eec.24.2026.09.23.15.00.38 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 23 Sep 2026 15:00:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 00/20] bpf: Run exception cleanup landing pads when bpf_throw() unwinds From: Eduard Zingerman To: Alexei Starovoitov , Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi , Andrii Nakryiko Cc: Yonghong Song , bpf@vger.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov , Andrii Nakryiko , Daniel Borkmann , kernel-team@fb.com Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2026 15:00:37 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <20260921210033.1715000-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev> <7e7076ce94e803403bcee003569d4b2ac7bc4e2c.camel@gmail.com> <7eba4eb055e15d5c78f463d013fa98bb21d7b494.camel@gmail.com> <37e53199dfda608de30a31fc51d22ed2b25d6d2e.camel@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.60.2 (3.60.2-1.fc44) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Wed, 2026-09-23 at 21:34 +0000, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: ... > Sorry, all I hear is a knee jerk reaction to a lot of slop. > yes. a lot of it is not needed, but invoke approach is no go. > As I said couple time [ip_start, ip_end] is not a single call insn. > libbpf patches do a bunch of unnecessary copy paste, > but that's because we didn't do insn_array support cleanly. > From libbpf pov bpf_cleanup section shouldn't be any different as > "one more section with pointers to instructions". >=20 > Sorry, we're not doing new 16-byte insn. We can chat about it > during the meeting, but I feel it will be a waste of time. If you simply don't like 16-byte instructions, then yes, nothing to talk about. > New insn doesn't reduce amount of slop. It literally and demonstrably does, I listed the actions that are not necessary with this encoding in the previous email. No matter which llm you use more actions needed =3D=3D more code. > Ed's example 1k vs 2k is a counter example. > This is just one llm vs another. Both sucked and both slop. > Just different amount of it. Fwiw, it was not a one-shot. The verifier part is curated. The jit part is whatever codex decided to do with the original series. I stand by the complexity reduction claim.