-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 164
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
eBPF.md: Add missing instructions and instruction variants (32-bit jumps, atomic instructions, call and lddw variants) #26
Open
qmonnet
wants to merge
12
commits into
iovisor:master
Choose a base branch
from
qmonnet:spec_jump32
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
12 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
1572c72
eBPF.md: Document 32-bit jump instructions
qmonnet 2cba7a8
eBPF.md: Document BPF_PSEUDO_MAP_FD for lddw
qmonnet d83f948
eBPF.md: Document BPF_PSEUDO_MAP_VALUE for lddw
qmonnet c1ebd26
eBPF.md: Document BPF_PSEUDO_BTF_ID for lddw
qmonnet 93454d0
eBPF.md: Document BPF_PSEUDO_FUNC for lddw
qmonnet bcb838c
eBPF.md: Document BPF_PSEUDO_MAP{_IDX,_IDX_VALUE} for lddw
qmonnet 09ec5cd
eBPF.md: Document BPF_PSEUDO_CALL for the call instruction
qmonnet 342b286
eBPF.md: Document BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL for the call instruction
qmonnet 31845b1
eBPF.md: Document atomic add instructions
qmonnet 37e3229
eBPF.md: Document atomic_fetch_add instructions
qmonnet 2163086
eBPF.md: Document atomic exchange and atomic compare-and-write
qmonnet 1df94e1
eBPF.md: Document atomic [fetch-and-]{and,or,xor} instructions
qmonnet File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can we get different mnemonics for each of the call variants?
In bpf_conformance I was proposing:
call [modifier] imm
Where [modifier] is optional and can be one of:
helper -> src = 0
local -> src = 1
runtime -> src = 2
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the feedback! I don't mind much either way, but let's see what syntax makes it to the Linux docs if the table gets updated, maybe? This PR has been sitting for nearly four years and I updated mostly to help Dave with the eBPF specs, at this point I doubt it will ever get merged.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's awesome. I didn't realize there was an official set of mnemonics as LLVM and GNU bintools seem to have wildly different disassembly outputs.
I just want to make sure the bpf_conformance tool has the "correct" ones.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think there's anything official, but I know @dthaler intended to have the table merged to the kernel docs (Alexei pushed back initially, at least from having them in the official spec - Not sure where things are right now, I haven't been able to follow over the last weeks). If this happens, it would probably make the document in the current repo irrelevant.