Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 20 Oct 2021 21:23:41 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Cc:     x86@kernel.org, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com,
        ndesaulniers@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 14/14] bpf,x86: Respect X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE*
Message-ID: <20211020192341.GQ174703@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20211020104442.021802560@infradead.org>
 <20211020105843.345016338@infradead.org>
 <YW/4/7MjUf3hWfjz@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20211020165655.632slp4ujsajis4j@treble>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20211020165655.632slp4ujsajis4j@treble>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 09:56:55AM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 01:09:51PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Alexei; could the above not be further improved with something like the
> > below?
> > 
> > Despite several hours trying and Song helping, I can't seem to run
> > anything bpf, that stuff is cursed. So I've no idea if the below
> > actually works, but it seems reasonable.
> 
> The below fix gets it to run with test_verififer.

Argh, I;m fast running out of brown paper bags at this rate :/

> 
> I do like it, it does seem less fiddly and more robust against future
> changes, though it probably needs a comment for 'out_label' clarifying
> it only works because this function is always called at least twice for
> a given bpf_tail_call emission.

Right.