Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] objtool: Fix ORC unwinding in non-JIT BPF generated code

[abhja kaanlani]

Maybe add more multidimensional arrays? 

Sent from my iPhone

>> On Jun 14, 2019, at 5:02 PM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 04:30:15PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:17 PM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 02:22:59PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 2:19 PM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> +#define JUMP_TABLE_SYM_PREFIX "jump_table."
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> since external tool will be looking at it should it be named
>>>>>>>> "bpf_jump_table." to avoid potential name conflicts?
>>>>>>>> Or even more unique name?
>>>>>>>> Like "bpf_interpreter_jump_table." ?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> No, the point is that it's a generic feature which can also be used any
>>>>>>> non-BPF code which might also have a jump table.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> and you're proposing to name all such jump tables in the kernel
>>>>>> as static foo jump_table[] ?
>>>>> 
>>>>> That's the idea.
>>>> 
>>>> Then it needs much wider discussion.
>>> 
>>> Why would it need wider discussion?  It only has one user.  If you
>>> honestly believe that it will be controversial to require future users
>>> to call a static jump table "jump_table" then we can have that
>>> discussion when it comes up.
>> 
>> It's clearly controversial.
>> I nacked it already on pointless name change
>> from "jumptable" to "jump_table" and now you're saying
>> that no one will complain about "jump_table" name
>> for all jump tables in the kernel that will ever appear?
> 
> Let me get this straight.  You're saying that "jumptable" and
> "bpf_interpreter_jump_table" are both acceptable.
> 
> But NACK to "jump_table".
> 
> Ok...
> 
> -- 
> Josh