From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexei Starovoitov Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] test_bpf: assign type to native eBPF test cases Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 10:14:13 -0700 Message-ID: <55BA5B65.4040902@plumgrid.com> References: <45cfb718190f86817a7662e58499a08f30521404.1438250937.git.daniel@iogearbox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: holzheu@linux.vnet.ibm.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Borkmann , davem@davemloft.net Return-path: Received: from mail-pd0-f171.google.com ([209.85.192.171]:33221 "EHLO mail-pd0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753325AbbG3ROP (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:14:15 -0400 Received: by pdbnt7 with SMTP id nt7so27615074pdb.0 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 10:14:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <45cfb718190f86817a7662e58499a08f30521404.1438250937.git.daniel@iogearbox.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 7/30/15 3:42 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > As JITs start to perform optimizations whether to clear A and X on eBPF > programs in the prologue, we should actually assign a program type to the > native eBPF test cases. It doesn't really matter which program type, as > these instructions don't go through the verifier, but it needs to be a > type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_UNSPEC. This reflects eBPF programs loaded via bpf(2) > system call (!= type unspec) vs. classic BPF to eBPF migrations (== type > unspec). > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann > Cc: Michael Holzheu Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov