On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 6:25 PM Johan Almbladh <johan.almbladh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I have been focusing on the code the last couple of weeks so I didn't > see your email until now. I am sure that this comes as much of a > surprise to you as it did to me. Anyway, can send a patch with my JIT > implementation tomorrow. It is surprising to have not one but two mips32 JITs :) I really hope you folks can figure out the common path forward. It sounds to me that the register mapping choices in both implementations are the same (which would be the most debated part to agree on). Not seeing Johan's patches it's hard to make any comparison. So far I like Tony's patches. The refactoring and code sharing is great. Tony, what 'static analysis' by the JIT you're referring to? re: bpf_jit_needs_zext issue between JIT and the verifier. It's a difficult one. opt_subreg_zext_lo32_rnd_hi32() shouldn't depend on JIT (other than bpf_jit_needs_zext). But you're setting that callback the same way as x86-32 JIT. So the same bug should be seen there too. Could you double check if it's the case? It's either a regression (if both x86-32 and mips32 JITs fail this test_verifier test) or endianness related (if it's mip32 JIT only). Thank you both for the exciting work!
