On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:52:16AM -0700, Xi Wang wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:28 AM Ilias Apalodimas
> wrote:
> > Even if that's true, is any reason at all why we should skip the first
> > element
> > of the array, that's now needed since 7c2e988f400 to jump back to the first
> > instruct
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:28 AM Ilias Apalodimas
wrote:
> Even if that's true, is any reason at all why we should skip the first element
> of the array, that's now needed since 7c2e988f400 to jump back to the first
> instruction?
> Introducing 2 extra if conditions and hotfix the array on the fly
Hi Luke,
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:21:58AM -0700, Luke Nelson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:08 AM Xi Wang wrote:
> > I don't think there's some consistent semantics of "offsets" across
> > the JITs of different architectures (maybe it's good to clean that
> > up). RV64 and RV32 JITs are
Hi Xi,
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:08:13AM -0700, Xi Wang wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 10:55 AM Ilias Apalodimas
> wrote:
> > We've briefly discussed this approach with Yauheni while coming up with the
> > posted patch.
> > I think that contructing the array correctly in the first place is be
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:08 AM Xi Wang wrote:
> I don't think there's some consistent semantics of "offsets" across
> the JITs of different architectures (maybe it's good to clean that
> up). RV64 and RV32 JITs are doing something similar to arm64 with
> respect to offsets. CCing Björn and Luk
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 10:55 AM Ilias Apalodimas
wrote:
> We've briefly discussed this approach with Yauheni while coming up with the
> posted patch.
> I think that contructing the array correctly in the first place is better.
> Right now it might only be used in bpf2a64_offset() and
> bpf_prog_
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 10:47:33AM -0700, Xi Wang wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 10:03 AM Ilias Apalodimas
> wrote:
> > Naresh from Linaro reported it during his tests on 5.8-rc1 as well [1].
> > I've included both Jiri and him on the v2 as reporters.
> >
> > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/8/11/
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 10:03 AM Ilias Apalodimas
wrote:
> Naresh from Linaro reported it during his tests on 5.8-rc1 as well [1].
> I've included both Jiri and him on the v2 as reporters.
>
> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/8/11/58
I'm curious what you think of Luke's earlier patch to this bug:
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 06:12:34PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 15:01:15 +0100 Will Deacon wrote:
>
> > Hi Ilias,
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 04:23:50PM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 03:35:04PM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
>
Hi Will,
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 03:01:15PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Ilias,
>
[...]
> > > >
> > > > No Fixes: tag?
> > >
> > > I'll re-spin and apply one
> > >
> > Any suggestion on any Fixes I should apply? The original code was 'correct'
> > and
> > broke only when bounded loops an
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 15:01:15 +0100 Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Ilias,
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 04:23:50PM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 03:35:04PM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 01:20:43PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > On Mon, S
Hi Ilias,
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 04:23:50PM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 03:35:04PM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 01:20:43PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:36:21AM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> > > > Running t
Hi Will,
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 03:35:04PM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 01:20:43PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:36:21AM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> > > Running the eBPF test_verifier leads to random errors looking like this:
> > >
> >
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 01:20:43PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:36:21AM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> > Running the eBPF test_verifier leads to random errors looking like this:
> >
> > [ 6525.735488] Unexpected kernel BRK exception at EL1
> > [ 6525.735502] Internal er
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:36:21AM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> Running the eBPF test_verifier leads to random errors looking like this:
>
> [ 6525.735488] Unexpected kernel BRK exception at EL1
> [ 6525.735502] Internal error: ptrace BRK handler: f2000100 [#1] SMP
> [ 6525.741609] Modules lin
15 matches
Mail list logo
