|
Re: bcc tools profile.py: open procmap fails
Also the binary need to be still running when doing symbolization.
Also the binary need to be still running when doing symbolization.
|
By
Teng Qin
·
#947
·
|
|
Re: bcc tools profile.py: open procmap fails
errno 2 (ENOENT) means file does not exist. You can add additional
print to check whether the file truly exists or not.
<iovisor-dev@...> wrote:
errno 2 (ENOENT) means file does not exist. You can add additional
print to check whether the file truly exists or not.
<iovisor-dev@...> wrote:
|
By
Yonghong Song
·
#946
·
|
|
Re: [PATCH v3 net-next] bpf/verifier: track liveness for pruning
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 00:12:58 +0200
Applied, nice work Edward.
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 00:12:58 +0200
Applied, nice work Edward.
|
By
David S. Miller
·
#945
·
|
|
Re: [PATCH v3 net-next] bpf/verifier: track liveness for pruning
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...>
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...>
|
By
Daniel Borkmann
·
#944
·
|
|
[PATCH v3 net-next] bpf/verifier: track liveness for pruning
State of a register doesn't matter if it wasn't read in reaching an exit;
a write screens off all reads downstream of it from all explored_states
upstream of it.
This allows us to prune many more
State of a register doesn't matter if it wasn't read in reaching an exit;
a write screens off all reads downstream of it from all explored_states
upstream of it.
This allows us to prune many more
|
By
Edward Cree <ecree@...>
·
#943
·
|
|
Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] bpf/verifier: track liveness for pruning
So it does. Of course testing didn't spot this, because
caller_saved[i] == i currently.
Yeah, I'll replace it with a comment, like the other one.
Thanks for review :)
-Ed
So it does. Of course testing didn't spot this, because
caller_saved[i] == i currently.
Yeah, I'll replace it with a comment, like the other one.
Thanks for review :)
-Ed
|
By
Edward Cree <ecree@...>
·
#942
·
|
|
Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] bpf/verifier: track liveness for pruning
[...]
Ah, I oversaw that earlier, this needs to be: s/i/caller_saved[i]/
We could leave this for clarity, but ...
[...]
caller_saved[i]
... then it should be here as well. Other option is to leave
[...]
Ah, I oversaw that earlier, this needs to be: s/i/caller_saved[i]/
We could leave this for clarity, but ...
[...]
caller_saved[i]
... then it should be here as well. Other option is to leave
|
By
Daniel Borkmann
·
#941
·
|
|
[PATCH v2 net-next] bpf/verifier: track liveness for pruning
State of a register doesn't matter if it wasn't read in reaching an exit;
a write screens off all reads downstream of it from all explored_states
upstream of it.
This allows us to prune many more
State of a register doesn't matter if it wasn't read in reaching an exit;
a write screens off all reads downstream of it from all explored_states
upstream of it.
This allows us to prune many more
|
By
Edward Cree <ecree@...>
·
#940
·
|
|
Re: [PATCH net-next] bpf/verifier: track liveness for pruning
Yes, I forgot about LD_ABS. I'll fix it and spin a v2.
-Ed
Yes, I forgot about LD_ABS. I'll fix it and spin a v2.
-Ed
|
By
Edward Cree <ecree@...>
·
#939
·
|
|
Re: [PATCH net-next] bpf/verifier: track liveness for pruning
Awesome work!
[...]
Don't we need the same in check_ld_abs() since we treat it similar
to a function call?
[...]
Awesome work!
[...]
Don't we need the same in check_ld_abs() since we treat it similar
to a function call?
[...]
|
By
Daniel Borkmann
·
#938
·
|
|
[PATCH net-next] bpf/verifier: track liveness for pruning
State of a register doesn't matter if it wasn't read in reaching an exit;
a write screens off all reads downstream of it from all explored_states
upstream of it.
This allows us to prune many more
State of a register doesn't matter if it wasn't read in reaching an exit;
a write screens off all reads downstream of it from all explored_states
upstream of it.
This allows us to prune many more
|
By
Edward Cree <ecree@...>
·
#937
·
|
|
Re: bcc tools profile.py: open procmap fails
Hi Wenxian,
I've tried -g, -ggdb, -gdwarf, -no-omit-frame-pointer (per the DEBUGGING section of the profile(8) man page.) to compile spin respectively, as well as a various combination of them. But
Hi Wenxian,
I've tried -g, -ggdb, -gdwarf, -no-omit-frame-pointer (per the DEBUGGING section of the profile(8) man page.) to compile spin respectively, as well as a various combination of them. But
|
By
Fenggang Wu
·
#936
·
|
|
Re: bcc tools profile.py: open procmap fails
Have you tried to compile spin.cc with -g para?
Thanks,
Wenxian
Have you tried to compile spin.cc with -g para?
Thanks,
Wenxian
|
By
wenxian li
·
#935
·
|
|
bcc tools profile.py: open procmap fails
Hi there,
I am trying out bcc tools from http://github.com/iovisor/bcc, more specificaly profile.py and offcputime.py. However in the tracing result, user functions are shown as "[unknown]", whereas
Hi there,
I am trying out bcc tools from http://github.com/iovisor/bcc, more specificaly profile.py and offcputime.py. However in the tracing result, user functions are shown as "[unknown]", whereas
|
By
Fenggang Wu
·
#934
·
|
|
Re: multi-key eBPF map
Hi Mauricio,
It sounds like you're trying to implement wildcard matching over a hash map.
Using all the keys would be an exact match, whereas using a subset of the keys would mean wildcarding the
Hi Mauricio,
It sounds like you're trying to implement wildcard matching over a hash map.
Using all the keys would be an exact match, whereas using a subset of the keys would mean wildcarding the
|
By
Paul Chaignon
·
#933
·
|
|
multi-key eBPF map
Dear All,
We are implementing an eBPF program that uses a multi-key map, we create a structure containing all the fields used as keys.
This approach works good until we perform operations on the map
Dear All,
We are implementing an eBPF program that uses a multi-key map, we create a structure containing all the fields used as keys.
This approach works good until we perform operations on the map
|
By
Mauricio Vasquez
·
#932
·
|
|
Re: reminder: IO Visor TSC/Dev Meeting
Sorry about that! I'm out on vacation today and neglected to send a note asking for somebody to fill in. Hopefully y'all figured out what was going on.
-Brenden
Sorry about that! I'm out on vacation today and neglected to send a note asking for somebody to fill in. Hopefully y'all figured out what was going on.
-Brenden
|
By
Brenden Blanco
·
#931
·
|
|
Re: reminder: IO Visor TSC/Dev Meeting
Happening today?
Brendan
By
Brendan Gregg
·
#930
·
|
|
Re: [PATCH v5 net-next 00/12] bpf: rewrite value tracking in verifier
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...>
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2017 02:46:16 +0200
Series applied, thanks everyone!
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...>
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2017 02:46:16 +0200
Series applied, thanks everyone!
|
By
David S. Miller
·
#929
·
|
|
Re: [PATCH v5 net-next 00/12] bpf: rewrite value tracking in verifier
Been testing and reviewing the series over the last several days, looks
reasonable to me as far as I can tell. Thanks for all the hard work on
unifying this, Edward!
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann
Been testing and reviewing the series over the last several days, looks
reasonable to me as far as I can tell. Thanks for all the hard work on
unifying this, Edward!
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann
|
By
Daniel Borkmann
·
#928
·
|