On 4/29/17 7:37 PM, David Miller wrote:
From: David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 22:24:50 -0400 (EDT)Some of your bugs should be fixed by this patch below, I'll add test cases soon:Ok, here are all the local changes in my tree. I made the relocs match LLVM and I fixed some dwarf debugging stuff. With this we are also down to one test case failure under binutils/ and it's something weird with merging 64-bit notes which I should be able to fix soon. I can fix these bugs fast, keep reporting. BTW, should I just remove tailcall from the opcode table altogether?
yeah. tailcall is not a special opcode from user space point of view. Only after normal call with func_id=bpf_tail_call passes verifier then verifier will change insn->code into CALL|X It's done only to have two 'case' statement in the interpreter, so that normal calls and tailcalls don't interfere. From user space pov CALL|X opcode is reserved and we can use it for something in the future. Just need to change interpeter and JITs.
case 'O': - (*info->fprintf_func) (stream, "%d", off); + (*info->fprintf_func) (stream, "%d", (int) off);
tried this diff. It looks better 10: 7b 1a f8 ff 00 00 00 00 stdw [r1+-8], r10 18: 79 a1 f8 ff 00 00 00 00 lddw r10, [r1+-8] I wonder if '+' can be removed as well. '-g' still doesn't seem to work: /w/binutils-gdb/bld/binutils/objdump: invalid relocation type 10/w/binutils-gdb/bld/binutils/objdump: BFD (GNU Binutils) 2.28.51.20170429 assertion fail ../../bfd/elf64-bpf.c:139
0: 18 01 00 00 39 47 98 83 ldimm64 r0, 590618314553
|