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=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=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=unavailable 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 F0CB4C31E50 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2019 00:06:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE0AB21773 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2019 00:06:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=live.com header.i=@live.com header.b="P3Wgja4k" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726603AbfFOAGZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Jun 2019 20:06:25 -0400 Received: from mail-oln040092002055.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([40.92.2.55]:29852 "EHLO NAM01-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726329AbfFOAGY (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Jun 2019 20:06:24 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=live.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=30HXd+dPJtY9USRwewE+Bx8bYj0GxNalDluahMAvmAA=; b=P3Wgja4ki15wIeHnix39n/Wm+5LJpLvalBRK6cZp8vSygMDI96MhjmlOC5blWCKTr1D2pCfaFkkLv3JCcqOHCz/WuUjseHnlQdw8VNv9k+B3wHX8ajpSE2elS4j2Ro2J694KfMay5bPAdzJ+gwLYk20ApIxg1y+knFJ5KjbAuUeLZm3TER4jkm/hEW8JYa/yz+UIXjjKZdEix1CjHUZLoyRSTu5I1e69cspGAUrwCag420F7gMrQeeJC5TuMLotiAcj7BbR/PXw/91gxMFWpHQ5U2anN/msPcDrimeNVqgnd+e/QPmazfO/DQ293ivqSlJm9O6OEFIxZSJ30AeaZqQ== Received: from SN1NAM01FT041.eop-nam01.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.64.55) by SN1NAM01HT093.eop-nam01.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.65.165) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.20.1987.11; Sat, 15 Jun 2019 00:06:22 +0000 Received: from BYAPR02MB5704.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (10.152.64.54) by SN1NAM01FT041.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.65.86) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.20.1987.11 via Frontend Transport; Sat, 15 Jun 2019 00:06:22 +0000 Received: from BYAPR02MB5704.namprd02.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::18b:f08e:21ff:fa35]) by BYAPR02MB5704.namprd02.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::18b:f08e:21ff:fa35%5]) with mapi id 15.20.1987.013; Sat, 15 Jun 2019 00:06:22 +0000 From: abhja kaanlani To: Josh Poimboeuf CC: Alexei Starovoitov , X86 ML , Alexei Starovoitov , LKML , Daniel Borkmann , Network Development , bpf , Peter Zijlstra , Song Liu , Kairui Song , Steven Rostedt , "David Laight" , Thomas Gleixner , Borislav Petkov , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] objtool: Fix ORC unwinding in non-JIT BPF generated code Thread-Topic: [PATCH v2 2/5] objtool: Fix ORC unwinding in non-JIT BPF generated code Thread-Index: AQHVItsbjvHW1pAgSkaM92TtuhP88aaboi8AgAACh4CAAAB3gIAAAtCAgAAA+oCAAB/wgIAAA5+AgAAJEQCAAAEGTw== Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2019 00:06:22 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20190614205841.s4utbpurntpr6aiq@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com> <20190614210745.kwiqm5pkgabruzuj@treble> <20190614211929.drnnawbi7guqj2ck@treble> <20190614231717.xukbfpc2cy47s4xh@treble> ,<20190615000242.e5tcogffvyuuhnrs@treble> In-Reply-To: <20190615000242.e5tcogffvyuuhnrs@treble> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-incomingtopheadermarker: OriginalChecksum:DB603815C01532625D1A267674924C175B13E31D40761902888A42887286FE9A;UpperCasedChecksum:C267D0A64ECB0339B6B7B385EF85E68656BD261CBC212BB4B7C483FD36C764C4;SizeAsReceived:8042;Count:44 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-tmn: [QbZJjtTO8EPklbpsz0US2cH1AnpybpFKVX62RKtDOFog3dsjKtba8xX50oTC43yi] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-incomingheadercount: 44 x-eopattributedmessage: 0 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(2390118)(5050001)(7020095)(20181119110)(201702061078)(5061506573)(5061507331)(1603103135)(2017031320274)(2017031322404)(2017031323274)(2017031324274)(1601125500)(1603101475)(1701031045);SRVR:SN1NAM01HT093; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: SN1NAM01HT093: x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: Q8qNuqf6Uuy02b1i3OVPLYOgHS376cv94/B8O4eqoPlHJ+HE1jAR9A2/9C5WM7rciEBPGYjAt45Rgve4I9n+VpZymPTTD3pY/lDgcDJFHP+PxtUYjj7/2891wOEq5Lz9WTjC8gEzmzi1mQW0gyqHA9rEbAdhSwRuRoHgZF0vDJyYZzwHlQVgLXyDZm/BR5S/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: live.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-RMS-PersistedConsumerOrg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 2d2cffa0-3052-41b6-d76d-08d6f1254cf9 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-rms-persistedconsumerorg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 15 Jun 2019 00:06:22.3561 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN1NAM01HT093 Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org Maybe add more multidimensional arrays?=20 Sent from my iPhone >> On Jun 14, 2019, at 5:02 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: >>=20 >>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 04:30:15PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:17 PM Josh Poimboeuf w= rote: >>>>=20 >>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 02:22:59PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 2:19 PM Josh Poimboeuf w= rote: >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> +#define JUMP_TABLE_SYM_PREFIX "jump_table." >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> since external tool will be looking at it should it be named >>>>>>>> "bpf_jump_table." to avoid potential name conflicts? >>>>>>>> Or even more unique name? >>>>>>>> Like "bpf_interpreter_jump_table." ? >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> No, the point is that it's a generic feature which can also be used= any >>>>>>> non-BPF code which might also have a jump table. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> and you're proposing to name all such jump tables in the kernel >>>>>> as static foo jump_table[] ? >>>>>=20 >>>>> That's the idea. >>>>=20 >>>> Then it needs much wider discussion. >>>=20 >>> Why would it need wider discussion? It only has one user. If you >>> honestly believe that it will be controversial to require future users >>> to call a static jump table "jump_table" then we can have that >>> discussion when it comes up. >>=20 >> It's clearly controversial. >> I nacked it already on pointless name change >> from "jumptable" to "jump_table" and now you're saying >> that no one will complain about "jump_table" name >> for all jump tables in the kernel that will ever appear? >=20 > Let me get this straight. You're saying that "jumptable" and > "bpf_interpreter_jump_table" are both acceptable. >=20 > But NACK to "jump_table". >=20 > Ok... >=20 > --=20 > Josh