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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,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 C5C24C43603 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 07:03:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FD2A206D3 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 07:03:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.washington.edu header.i=@cs.washington.edu header.b="NkuGcga7" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727154AbfLJHDX (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Dec 2019 02:03:23 -0500 Received: from mail-il1-f195.google.com ([209.85.166.195]:39977 "EHLO mail-il1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726819AbfLJHDW (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Dec 2019 02:03:22 -0500 Received: by mail-il1-f195.google.com with SMTP id b15so15175599ila.7 for ; Mon, 09 Dec 2019 23:03:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cs.washington.edu; s=goo201206; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=XOLR366ue9UbdwpGi75PQA5BDSgsShKRMR6syBVaCSI=; b=NkuGcga7SVDZTUMMo51w4HRsBnbf0R/URj6PpPGlU3pLyxh/0ttxIog576y1yzdvLn eoJ8kf6kXgiGbSaaWDuUGmWTjtsTjZKVSCJ8Q1SnoKKiwiN/5ZXbedZXayDFlSyae+Yy nAhd9fD3buTsungj4t2ef9PnPd818UbU+6cdU= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XOLR366ue9UbdwpGi75PQA5BDSgsShKRMR6syBVaCSI=; b=lLuvDZGalwKPjrx1CmDNX67JRzLKOMQ446E1YvgpP1/8XWez62pEEmmF9JwQ72sPOM BnJTQqXrcVo1iq6XfzJiWI7qkhGxoYUbKHK6Ij0fD455eGuCYpHf9k7qOvxxErWRhOL/ hpGjB0RsR5E2b4/zL6UbUuTJ+E9lb9MiWBw738vtMZ7K7NsTBJOFu5I3iI5eQbv0MEiG FqB+UskOHROswJoLHxx97i45kw5Jdryx64iA7tRt8KgLIk01rD/sJVQXOGV1scRbP8iG pnTDCPzbwkSSJwYr0Pn/1YEqs3Oa9xEMgtnZ60tVgnuN5cehOJraV5BejyFmUxGD3Wol HLqA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXJlQdRUNmF8meNXtJROZOAIIoKBOREhUOfXovuZMsbalhNFrrH X1/hCdlY3D6OM8oKyk+0H895q/xbFg370beKmNLCtQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzgHM+DLDGODvA/sjBCZyZhAfvnRErBW0IceCs2/IQqhRh8rJvuSRMhu9qEW/u/DVJiNXoqYx8gBP7F7uuyY6I= X-Received: by 2002:a92:86c5:: with SMTP id l66mr31157017ilh.280.1575961401998; Mon, 09 Dec 2019 23:03:21 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191209173136.29615-1-bjorn.topel@gmail.com> <20191209173136.29615-3-bjorn.topel@gmail.com> <2d5d1f2d-d4ab-2449-37c6-e5b319a778d6@iogearbox.net> In-Reply-To: <2d5d1f2d-d4ab-2449-37c6-e5b319a778d6@iogearbox.net> From: Luke Nelson Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 23:02:53 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/8] riscv, bpf: add support for far branching To: Daniel Borkmann Cc: =?UTF-8?B?QmrDtnJuIFTDtnBlbA==?= , Alexei Starovoitov , Netdev , linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, bpf , Xi Wang Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: bpf-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 1:27 PM Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > This is awesome work! Did you also check for other architectures aside > from riscv and x86-32, e.g. x86-64 or arm64? We haven't tried on x86-64 or arm64 yet, but we plan to in the future and are looking at ways to minimize the effort required to port verification to new architectures. > It would be great if we could add such verification tool under tools/bpf/ > which would then take the in-tree JIT-code as-is for its analysis and > potentially even trigger a run out of BPF selftests. Any thoughts whether > such path would be feasible wrt serval? Right now the verification requires manual translation of the JIT implementation in C to Rosette for verification, which makes it difficult to integrate into existing tests. Were currently working on automating this process to be able to verify the C implementation directly. If this works out, it'd be awesome to integrate into the selftests in some way. Will keep you posted. Thanks, Luke