On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 6:25 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 6:59 PM Alexei Starovoitov > <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi David, hi Jakub, hi Paolo, hi Eric, > > > > The following pull-request contains BPF updates for your *net-next* tree. > > > > We've added 73 non-merge commits during the last 9 day(s) which contain > > a total of 79 files changed, 5275 insertions(+), 600 deletions(-). > > > > The main changes are: > > > > 1) Basic BTF validation in libbpf, from Andrii Nakryiko. > > > > 2) bpf_assert(), bpf_throw(), exceptions in bpf progs, from Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi. > > > > 3) next_thread cleanups, from Oleg Nesterov. > > > > 4) Add mcpu=v4 support to arm32, from Puranjay Mohan. > > > > 5) Add support for __percpu pointers in bpf progs, from Yonghong Song. > > > > 6) Fix bpf tailcall interaction with bpf trampoline, from Leon Hwang. > > > > 7) Raise irq_work in bpf_mem_alloc while irqs are disabled to improve refill probabablity, from Hou Tao. > > > > Please consider pulling these changes from: > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git > > > > This might have been raised already, but bpf on x86 now depends on > CONFIG_UNWINDER_ORC ? > > $ grep CONFIG_UNWINDER_ORC .config > # CONFIG_UNWINDER_ORC is not set > > $ make ... > arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:3022:58: error: no member named 'sp' in > 'struct unwind_state' > if (!addr || !consume_fn(cookie, (u64)addr, > (u64)state.sp, (u64)state.bp)) > ~~~~~ ^ > 1 error generated. Kumar, can probably explain better, but no the bpf as whole doesn't depend. One feature needs either ORC or frame unwinder. It won't work with unwinder_guess. The build error is a separate issue. It hasn't been reported before.
