From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mta1.migadu.com (out-161.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.161]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18E0B4F85D9 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2026 18:44:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.161 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790016269; cv=none; b=mN9NcUe6DEEqAG8oqYR1wEv6+IwlKuVbxBMf2/9YzxmShhp0H82j2zZs10DKoRvwemW0viLn9rNaaeF2qZe69ona8GSIbPW3N4ieo8znBSJc1YxpiSGCRrKfNqJ9x/2x2yxDk3qeFMC7RiDTq1EtAyE0rg4LkRYXwutvknUC2rY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790016269; c=relaxed/simple; bh=4whLlJ5HdZQmQogZNAqZXk4GU1IkwKwJWSrRgBfhUrc=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=r4eud6F4SwSccMm+5+OvVFiVoH/ZsVKilWqAc2UbM1v4QpR1b6x6QbdW6BLNkstX9plndf+lZaDc4154Q+vav+QT7GSSYs7gZ5rM2owIPWv7YY98545iLHybpmgPHbUq0FQWiQZak9RAOCajnzxy2KnGnhExFrFwnG5KFIe2sgs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=w1qNfZPx; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.161 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="w1qNfZPx" X-Envelope-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; bh=4whLlJ5HdZQmQogZNAqZXk4GU1IkwKwJWSrRgBfhUrc=; c=simple/simple; d=linux.dev; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; s=key1; t=1790016265; v=1; x=1790621065; b=w1qNfZPxwwUUWhfwhnUMoSWUAe/xr4J6zMgZN0ZTB9JcYHdEJ5wOrsIeG7AYGJTcPiL6LBul C1Ymh/SrgJDqopLDS8xpfJyoX3Caye+0XNiYDXgq6R2LLHG7rLCBaZqQyP9rUdzcAO7dG6l/KTE gB3Y2gjSNZkHYnJoK6b2Y+EA= X-Envelope-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Received: by smtp.migadu.com with ESMTPS id 581e5963eac9bec4; Mon, 21 Sep 2026 18:44:24 +0000 X-Mizu-Trace-ID: 581e5963eac9bec4 X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT Message-ID: <2b813393-f754-4047-b792-6878adcaf3cb@linux.dev> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2026 11:44:19 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 01/13] bpf: move linked-scalar flags out of bpf_reg_state->id [NFC] To: Eduard Zingerman , Alexei Starovoitov , ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org, memxor@gmail.com Cc: martin.lau@linux.dev, song@kernel.org, yonghong.song@linux.dev, jolsa@kernel.org, emil@etsalapatis.com, ihor.solodrai@linux.dev, john.fastabend@gmail.com, shuah@kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org References: <20260910164635.459558-1-vineet.gupta@linux.dev> <20260910164635.459558-2-vineet.gupta@linux.dev> <6289e47f004b8b0d5ce55143fb1d55f7306856c0.camel@gmail.com> From: Vineet Gupta Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <6289e47f004b8b0d5ce55143fb1d55f7306856c0.camel@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 9/18/26 4:13 PM, Eduard Zingerman wrote: > On Mon, 2026-09-14 at 18:17 -0700, Vineet Gupta wrote: > > ... > >>>   static bool regs_exact(const struct bpf_reg_state *rold, >>>                  const struct bpf_reg_state *rcur, >>>                  struct bpf_idmap *idmap) >>>   { >>>       return memcmp(rold, rcur, offsetof(struct bpf_reg_state, id)) == 0 && >>>              check_ids(rold->id, rcur->id, idmap) && >>>              check_ids(rold->parent_id, rcur->parent_id, idmap); >>>   } >>> Also even after above change to check_scalar_ids() the check_scalar_ids() is still >>> no equivalent to check_ids() that regs_exact() is doing. >> ... Right: reverting back to what we had before. >> FWIW Eduard had suggested to use regs_exact; I'm not sure if he had >> something else in mind which we might be overlooking. > I missed the check_scalar_ids() vs check_ids() difference, sorry. > Also, yes, let's squash with patch #2. > > ... Yep, will do. Thx, -Vineet