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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1706C433E0 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 20:00:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67075235FF for ; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 20:00:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727021AbhAGUAe (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jan 2021 15:00:34 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:51590 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726073AbhAGUAd (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jan 2021 15:00:33 -0500 Received: from mail-pj1-x102e.google.com (mail-pj1-x102e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102e]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65042C0612F4; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 12:00:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pj1-x102e.google.com with SMTP id j13so4441264pjz.3; Thu, 07 Jan 2021 12:00:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=wh+6IqxKBsEEEDVUlamA3AcE5xJ7bW9iP0jShrBxnko=; b=gAg/nAshHthLBXuKkSQOWhq3JbJqISNbcwapevF4wqnUqUSycDoPJonVb/GoX2SBdn qGiFPZVWTM8vmYnOKiKGhGuhl1zdOnqbbRd/lTC8svQN29Lv/eBztWpeRghJ1hAF0IJA e5bCPoruv2EJian7OIj2LTv/X8QZpDudEjBQDmhmVFoZgJcf2AxbazbfawRLrwBhfwP2 a/hbiMOKoR6pt9BRoB00X1JJ06CKWxh/OUX/NyqRDz2vjyYCCqxSBcym53TL1z1biQm3 XKyYowklgL1JEQsb6zcdWakUUf651DlepJkQVl9XWnqHwzOq6tvcO1WDs/nevCvcVoXI Hfvw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=wh+6IqxKBsEEEDVUlamA3AcE5xJ7bW9iP0jShrBxnko=; b=p9cSI81Cd8fg86kg5KyF4+NqVvniELqUhNbdEffksdJorwtcBAtj6STiJbKijJRuoh 3FmpwsANJep4uEBmASKt9PrW7SaNDiv26FZ+9Il6vmuPUAtraDSGaDMol7SP9NxSrwPZ SXuRSEn0cxAzdLIjUJ9oU0Vj4ZqK6a3G7R3FqdYZgX0qXYlhjTAYf9kZtWhXuFOQVTNo fEr2HNgNPTeXIJ5lVBBKkU7SrEXIgtlDzu4rna7iJE/29+cxaFMR7TGcrkB8ac912x7B uoAq1bVqhx+sBzCgDA5R+OsIaYcJ898bWnLtCtRfzVTB6PX59/2UeCjHkHp7ZJnqH9Df aZbw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531h6zhtfAwdHgfoC4uNlxaAb08P9IPFm35giDI3T7Ysh6JnH/G3 soU7YUbQORgmejyQiPa/NOU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwv+nlRU5J3h8BZSVcCwhM5fednEuF0RaagfZN3zOWuGVW2E4knvGYeky8sH+N4Y7jDRuaiDQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:215:: with SMTP id fy21mr97886pjb.227.1610049617964; Thu, 07 Jan 2021 12:00:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from ast-mbp ([2620:10d:c090:400::5:4d7d]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b12sm6507295pft.114.2021.01.07.12.00.15 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 07 Jan 2021 12:00:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2021 12:00:14 -0800 From: Alexei Starovoitov To: Andrii Nakryiko Cc: Gilad Reti , Andrii Nakryiko , bpf , Networking , Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Kernel Team Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 3/3] selftests/bpf: add tests for user- and non-CO-RE BPF_CORE_READ() variants Message-ID: <20210107200014.ijpg3n7mjqdrrrvo@ast-mbp> References: <20201218235614.2284956-1-andrii@kernel.org> <20201218235614.2284956-4-andrii@kernel.org> <20210105034644.5thpans6alifiq65@ast-mbp> <20210105190355.2lbt6vlmi752segx@ast-mbp> <20210106060920.wmnvwolbmju4edp3@ast-mbp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 03:25:30PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > > > If I am not mistaken (which is completely possible), I think that > > providing such a macro will > > not cause any more confusion than the bpf_probe_read_{,user} > > distinction already does, > > since BPF_CORE_READ_USER to BPF_CORE_READ is the same as bpf_probe_read_user > > to bpf_probe_read. > > I think the biggest source of confusion is that USER part in > BPF_CORE_READ_USER refers to reading data from user address space, not > really user structs (which is kind of natural instinct here). CO-RE > *always* works only with kernel types, which is obvious if you have a > lot of experience with using CO-RE, but not initially, unfortunately. Please send a patch to add such clarifying comment.