Please join us tomorrow for our bi-weekly call. As usual, this meeting is open to everybody and completely optional. You might be interested to join if: You want to know what is going on in BPF

Yes, thanks. Though CPATH seems to be more universal. I'll work up some docs and submit a PR. Now, if I can find an equivalent to dtrace's print(arg[0])... -- richard

Glad you find a solution! Sure. Verifier understands some dynamic check if these dynamic check is resolved to be constant vs. variable or constant vs. constant compares during path sensitive

I finally discover that checksum can be calculated via incremental update. (see RFC 1624) Using it, I didn't have to deal with dynamic sized payload and so no more issue with the verifier. So I go

Great, will have a look, thanks!Regards,Jiong On 05/04/2019 07:45, Y Song wrote:

Hi, Jiong, To follow up the iovisor meeting discussion, the below is my prototype for an end_loop instruction in

C_INCLUDE_PATH=... environment variable should work. But you can file an RFE or PR anyway to add this to the docs. Thanks! Brendan

I have a need to have a bpftrace script #include headers from a project directory. In cc, this is like adding -I<path>. Am I blind from reading manuals or is there a clever way to pass that info down

Hi, We are seeing an issue with XDP(xdp generic) attached to Azure vNICs. When "accelerated networking" is enabled on Azure vNICs, xdp doesn't receive all the packets. We see all of them in tcpdump

Hi All, Thanks for the good discussion today! Below are my notes. Thanks, Brenden === Discussion === Michael: * https://github.com/savisko/katran/tree/xdp_off * Mellanox presentation on XDP +

Hi, Please see attached presentation of XDP acceleration of Katrab LB (in PPT and PDF). The code can be found here: https://github.com/savisko/katran/tree/xdp_off Regards, Michael

Agenda: discussion on XDP acceleration of Katran LB Please join us tomorrow for our bi-weekly call. As usual, this meeting is open to everybody and completely optional. You might be interested to

<saeedm@...> wrote: Sending to the iovisor-dev mailer is gated by a signup requirement, in order to reduce spam. The signup process should be pretty painless, I believe it just requires

Hi Brenden, I am sending this on behalf of Michael Savisko, he is having some difficulties sending emails to the iovisor list. Michael is working on real world use cases for XDP acceleration. He

<palvarez=akamai.com@...> wrote: -O0 won't work as helper call will become an indirect call static void *(*bpf_map_lookup_elem)(void *map, void *key) = (void *)

Why is it required that llvm compile the BPF code with -O2? That seems to be part of what is causing these verifier problems...

If you use BPF constructor debug=16 flag, it will print out the register state for every insn if you are even more curious. To resolve this issue, llvm may need to do more: - prevent/undo

Just my humble opinion, I would recommend: 1. get used to verifier rejection information, for example:

Thx a lot for your time Jiong. The more I played with bpf/xdp, the more I understand that the challenge is about making "optimized byte code" compliant for the verifier. How could I do this kind of

And in your code, after you insert those printk, they made the following two comparisons non-combinable any more, so udp_len is used for the comparison and got correct value range to pass the later