Daniel Borkmann says:
====================
pull-request: bpf-next 2018-03-21
The following pull-request contains BPF updates for your *net-next* tree.
The main changes are:
1) Add a BPF hook for sendmsg and sendfile by reusing the ULP infrastructure
and sockmap. Three helpers are added along with this, bpf_msg_apply_bytes(),
bpf_msg_cork_bytes(), and bpf_msg_pull_data(). The first is used to tell
for how many bytes the verdict should be applied to, the second to tell
that x bytes need to be queued first to retrigger the BPF program for a
verdict, and the third helper is mainly for the sendfile case to pull in
data for making it private for reading and/or writing, from John.
2) Improve address to symbol resolution of user stack traces in BPF stackmap.
Currently, the latter stores the address for each entry in the call trace,
however to map these addresses to user space files, it is necessary to
maintain the mapping from these virtual addresses to symbols in the binary
which is not practical for system-wide profiling. Instead, this option for
the stackmap rather stores the ELF build id and offset for the call trace
entries, from Song.
3) Add support that allows BPF programs attached to perf events to read the
address values recorded with the perf events. They are requested through
PERF_SAMPLE_ADDR via perf_event_open(). Main motivation behind it is to
support building memory or lock access profiling and tracing tools with
the help of BPF, from Teng.
4) Several improvements to the tools/bpf/ Makefiles. The 'make bpf' in the
tools directory does not provide the standard quiet output except for
bpftool and it also does not respect specifying a build output directory.
'make bpf_install' command neither respects specified destination nor
prefix, all from Jiri. In addition, Jakub fixes several other minor issues
in the Makefiles on top of that, e.g. fixing dependency paths, phony
targets and more.
5) Various doc updates e.g. add a comment for BPF fs about reserved names
to make the dentry lookup from there a bit more obvious, and a comment
to the bpf_devel_QA file in order to explain the diff between native
and bpf target clang usage with regards to pointer size, from Quentin
and Daniel.
====================
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
454bfe9783