Queued for loongarch-next, thanks. Huacai On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 2:32 PM Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > JITs can set bpf_jit_bypass_spec_v1/v4() if they want the verifier > to skip analysis/patching for the respective vulnerability, it is > safe to set both bpf_jit_bypass_spec_v1/v4(), because there is no > speculation barrier instruction for LoongArch. > > Suggested-by: Luis Gerhorst <luis.gerhorst@xxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@xxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > > This is based on the latest bpf-next tree which contains the > prototype and caller for bpf_jit_bypass_spec_v1/v4(). > > By the way, it needs to update bpf-next tree before building > on LoongArch: > > [Build Error Report] Implicit Function declaration for bpf-next tree > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/d602ae87-8bed-1633-d5b6-41c5bd8bbcdc@xxxxxxxxxxx/ > > arch/loongarch/net/bpf_jit.c | 10 ++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/loongarch/net/bpf_jit.c b/arch/loongarch/net/bpf_jit.c > index fa1500d4aa3e..5de8f4c44700 100644 > --- a/arch/loongarch/net/bpf_jit.c > +++ b/arch/loongarch/net/bpf_jit.c > @@ -1359,3 +1359,13 @@ bool bpf_jit_supports_subprog_tailcalls(void) > { > return true; > } > + > +bool bpf_jit_bypass_spec_v1(void) > +{ > + return true; > +} > + > +bool bpf_jit_bypass_spec_v4(void) > +{ > + return true; > +} > -- > 2.42.0 > >
