From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Seiffert Subject: Re: [REGRESSION][PATCH V4 3/3] bpf jit: Let the powerpc jit handle negative offsets Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 00:32:13 +0200 Message-ID: <4F9F12ED.1090009@googlemail.com> 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> <1335823049.20866.48.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , , , To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1335823049.20866.48.camel@pasglop> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Benjamin Herrenschmidt schrieb: > 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 >>> 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. > *shudder* Link to another lib for only one function because.... http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/sys/net/bpf.h?rev=1.59&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup&only_with_tag=MAIN The "Original" says it's an u_int. But i guess it is unfixable without breaking something, except with ugly code. Should the padding at least be made explicit in the in-kernel struct? Did anyone ever tested the 32bit on 64bit compat code (different padding)? > I'll start spamming web sites who tell people to do the wrong thing. > > Cheers, > Ben. > Greetings Jan -- A UDP packet walks into a