From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDAC0B6EF3
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Tue,  1 May 2012 07:57:38 +1000 (EST)
Message-ID: <1335823049.20866.48.camel@pasglop>
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION][PATCH V4 3/3] bpf jit: Let the powerpc jit handle
 negative offsets
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 07:57:29 +1000
In-Reply-To: <1335822926.20866.47.camel@pasglop>
References: <1335760199.20866.33.camel@pasglop>
 <4F9E188E.80503@googlemail.com> <1335763568.20866.37.camel@pasglop>
 <20120430.134140.1738751315208907289.davem@davemloft.net>
 <1335822926.20866.47.camel@pasglop>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: kaffeemonster@googlemail.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, matt@ozlabs.org,
 netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 07:55 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 13:41 -0400, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
> > Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:26:08 +1000
> > 
> > > David, what's the right way to fix that ?
> > 
> > There is no doubt that sock_fprog is the correct datastructure to use.
> 
> Ok, so the right fix is to email anybody who posted code using struct
> bpf_program to fix their code ? :-)

Actually, the right fix is for anybody using pcap-bpf.h to not
use SO_ATTACH_FILTER directly but to use pcap_setfilter() which
handles the compatibility.

I'll start spamming web sites who tell people to do the wrong thing.

Cheers,
Ben.