On Thu, 2024-08-15 at 14:25 -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 4:44 PM Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > do_misc_fixups() relaces bpf_cast_to_kern_ctx() and bpf_rdonly_cast() > > by a single instruction "r0 = r1". This clearly follows nocsr contract. > > Mark these two functions as KF_NOCSR, in order to use them in > > selftests checking KF_NOCSR behaviour for kfuncs. > > > > Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > kernel/bpf/helpers.c | 4 ++-- > > kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 3 ++- > > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > Isn't it now "bpf fastcall" and not "nocsr"? Shouldn't the flag and > verifier code reflect this updated terminology? Here is a pull request for LLVM that lands the feature under the new bpf_fastcall name: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/101228 I hope that it would be approved today or tomorrow (more like tomorrow). Kernel side uses NOCSR in all places. I can add a first patch to the series, renaming all NOCSR to bpf_fastcall, now that it looks like llvm upstream won't object the name. [...]
