On 6/19/20 2:39 AM, John Fastabend wrote:
John Fastabend wrote:
Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:58 AM John Fastabend
<john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
That would be great. Self-tests do work, but having more testing with
real-world application would certainly help as well.
Thanks for all the follow up.
I ran the change through some CI on my side and it passed so I can
complain about a few shifts here and there or just update my code or
just not change the return types on my side but I'm convinced its OK
in most cases and helps in some so...
Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx>
I'll follow this up with a few more selftests to capture a couple of our
patterns. These changes are subtle and I worry a bit that additional
<<,s>> pattern could have the potential to break something.
Another one we didn't discuss that I found in our code base is feeding
the output of a probe_* helper back into the size field (after some
alu ops) of subsequent probe_* call. Unfortunately, the tests I ran
today didn't cover that case.
I'll put it on the list tomorrow and encode these in selftests. I'll
let the mainainers decide if they want to wait for those or not.
Given potential fragility on verifier side, my preference would be that we
have the known variations all covered in selftests before moving forward in
order to make sure they don't break in any way. Back in [0] I've seen mostly
similar cases in the way John mentioned in other projects, iirc, sysdig was
another one. If both of you could hack up the remaining cases we need to
cover and then submit a combined series, that would be great. I don't think
we need to rush this optimization w/o necessary selftests.
Thanks everyone,
Daniel
[0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200421125822.14073-1-daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
