From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxx> Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 23:44:59 -0700 > 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. All disassemblers in binutils print it this way, sparc, x86, etc. > '-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 Hmm, I defined a relocation type 10 in the patch, make sure BFD got rebuilt properly... I'll double check here too.
|