From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751974AbdFUTxg (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jun 2017 15:53:36 -0400 Received: from www62.your-server.de ([213.133.104.62]:57429 "EHLO www62.your-server.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751865AbdFUTxf (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jun 2017 15:53:35 -0400 Message-ID: <594ACEB7.2030707@iogearbox.net> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 21:53:27 +0200 From: Daniel Borkmann User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Shubham Bansal CC: Kees Cook , Network Development , "David S. Miller" , Alexei Starovoitov , Russell King , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , LKML , Andrew Lunn Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm: eBPF JIT compiler References: <1495754003-21099-1-git-send-email-illusionist.neo@gmail.com> <593E6B0F.8070901@iogearbox.net> <59419D1E.2060303@iogearbox.net> <594813AA.5010001@iogearbox.net> <59495367.3080402@iogearbox.net> <594A9FA5.1080003@iogearbox.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated-Sender: daniel@iogearbox.net Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 06/21/2017 09:37 PM, Shubham Bansal wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Good news. Got the CALL to work. > > [ 145.670882] test_bpf: Summary: 316 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [287/308 JIT'ed] > > Awesome. Do you think with this implementation, the patch could get > accepted? If you think so, then I will send the patch in couple of > days after some refactoring, if not, then do let me know what more is > required? Nice, it's ultimately up to the arm folks to review the set in-depth, but feel free to send out the patch once you're done refactoring. With BPF_CALL support that looks quite good from pov of supported insns. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Borkmann Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm: eBPF JIT compiler Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 21:53:27 +0200 Message-ID: <594ACEB7.2030707@iogearbox.net> References: <1495754003-21099-1-git-send-email-illusionist.neo@gmail.com> <593E6B0F.8070901@iogearbox.net> <59419D1E.2060303@iogearbox.net> <594813AA.5010001@iogearbox.net> <59495367.3080402@iogearbox.net> <594A9FA5.1080003@iogearbox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Kees Cook , Network Development , "David S. Miller" , Alexei Starovoitov , Russell King , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , LKML , Andrew Lunn To: Shubham Bansal Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 06/21/2017 09:37 PM, Shubham Bansal wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Good news. Got the CALL to work. > > [ 145.670882] test_bpf: Summary: 316 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [287/308 JIT'ed] > > Awesome. Do you think with this implementation, the patch could get > accepted? If you think so, then I will send the patch in couple of > days after some refactoring, if not, then do let me know what more is > required? Nice, it's ultimately up to the arm folks to review the set in-depth, but feel free to send out the patch once you're done refactoring. With BPF_CALL support that looks quite good from pov of supported insns. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: daniel@iogearbox.net (Daniel Borkmann) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 21:53:27 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v2] arm: eBPF JIT compiler In-Reply-To: References: <1495754003-21099-1-git-send-email-illusionist.neo@gmail.com> <593E6B0F.8070901@iogearbox.net> <59419D1E.2060303@iogearbox.net> <594813AA.5010001@iogearbox.net> <59495367.3080402@iogearbox.net> <594A9FA5.1080003@iogearbox.net> Message-ID: <594ACEB7.2030707@iogearbox.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 06/21/2017 09:37 PM, Shubham Bansal wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Good news. Got the CALL to work. > > [ 145.670882] test_bpf: Summary: 316 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [287/308 JIT'ed] > > Awesome. Do you think with this implementation, the patch could get > accepted? If you think so, then I will send the patch in couple of > days after some refactoring, if not, then do let me know what more is > required? Nice, it's ultimately up to the arm folks to review the set in-depth, but feel free to send out the patch once you're done refactoring. With BPF_CALL support that looks quite good from pov of supported insns.