From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [MERGE README] net --> net-next Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 01:16:40 +0100 (WEST) Message-ID: <20171023.011640.460279805189770122.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20171022.135717.971703426919688431.davem@davemloft.net> <59EC9877.6080702@iogearbox.net> <59ECF46D.30903@iogearbox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, john.fastabend@gmail.com To: daniel@iogearbox.net Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([184.105.139.130]:39444 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932151AbdJWAQo (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Oct 2017 20:16:44 -0400 In-Reply-To: <59ECF46D.30903@iogearbox.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Daniel Borkmann Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 21:41:33 +0200 > On 10/22/2017 03:09 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote: >> On 10/22/2017 02:57 PM, David Miller wrote: >>> >>> There were quite a few BPF conflicts during the merge I just did of >>> 'net' into 'net-next'. >>> >>> In particular, all of the packet pointer branch tests in the verifier >>> had to be resolved wrt. three different sets of changes. >>> >>> The off-by-one stuff. The allowance of the 'data_end > ptr + x' form >>> of packet pointer checks. And finally, the metadata stuff. >>> >>> I would really appreciate an audit and double check of my merge work >>> by the interested parties. >> >> I will do a review today in the evening, thanks David! > > Looks good overall, I notices two things (in find_good_pkt_pointers() > in the second loop the max_t(u16, ...) still exists instead of just > max() in -net and in test_verifier the test cases for 'XDP pkt read' > are split in the middle with other test cases for bpf_exit). I'll send > a cleanup on Monday for this along with the matches for metadata part. Thanks for taking a look, I was slightly stumped by the max_t() and decided to keep it in the merge. If both arms of the operation are u16 then indeed it isn't necessary. Thanks again!