From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C04CC433F5 for ; Sun, 3 Oct 2021 22:50:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41256611C6 for ; Sun, 3 Oct 2021 22:50:27 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 41256611C6 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ellerman.id.au Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lists.ozlabs.org Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4HMzZn5Txgz2ywt for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2021 09:50:25 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ellerman.id.au header.i=@ellerman.id.au header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=201909 header.b=T2hsChMt; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from gandalf.ozlabs.org (gandalf.ozlabs.org [150.107.74.76]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HMzZ52DcRz2xXx for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2021 09:49:49 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ellerman.id.au header.i=@ellerman.id.au header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=201909 header.b=T2hsChMt; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from authenticated.ozlabs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4HMzZ14jyGz4xLs; Mon, 4 Oct 2021 09:49:45 +1100 (AEDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ellerman.id.au; s=201909; t=1633301386; bh=zP1VM0NrmazED+mwceU1HnKdXINf8/vpTVx3UebDtIE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=T2hsChMtZ/7+iRIYzxPdJ+YHXsKTnwEyFhms7tYvfrp1oALOM1IpV+LS8ZN5VgSz5 GAjL7F33eqAilMCrep9gUIiBqbOwzF0wfU27o14Ry00jYoUEkrGe1hDK423L7kMAkQ BCQ005V6Wj9TPyVxpkaadgaogfFGT3VR/6Vx3kl7YoRQoWiYFlZbpDeW5+iz5ty0r1 733x2KTEl6GfySnQCLCEQo2bogCD3DBzbhQqh9qgluHCpBdjsTKU6pf9bRQndY3Y7N /oG7xZ+ccw9Lg8ctfK9YdTWLARk2YHkpQj5bGmyu5tEPRFcl7PAqqWtnXL7Sc3rL9n nz08MBdP7XNXw== From: Michael Ellerman To: Daniel Borkmann , Hari Bathini , naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com, christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu, ast@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/8] bpf powerpc: Add BPF_PROBE_MEM support in powerpc JIT compiler In-Reply-To: <88b59272-e3f7-30ba-dda0-c4a6b42c0029@iogearbox.net> References: <20210929111855.50254-1-hbathini@linux.ibm.com> <88b59272-e3f7-30ba-dda0-c4a6b42c0029@iogearbox.net> Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2021 09:49:44 +1100 Message-ID: <87o885raev.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: songliubraving@fb.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, john.fastabend@gmail.com, andrii@kernel.org, kpsingh@kernel.org, paulus@samba.org, yhs@fb.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, kafai@fb.com Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" Daniel Borkmann writes: > On 9/29/21 1:18 PM, Hari Bathini wrote: >> Patch #1 & #2 are simple cleanup patches. Patch #3 refactors JIT >> compiler code with the aim to simplify adding BPF_PROBE_MEM support. >> Patch #4 introduces PPC_RAW_BRANCH() macro instead of open coding >> branch instruction. Patch #5 & #7 add BPF_PROBE_MEM support for PPC64 >> & PPC32 JIT compilers respectively. Patch #6 & #8 handle bad userspace >> pointers for PPC64 & PPC32 cases respectively. > > Michael, are you planning to pick up the series or shall we route via bpf-next? Yeah I'll plan to take it, unless you think there is a strong reason it needs to go via the bpf tree (doesn't look like it from the diffstat). cheers