Adding upstream version 4.19.249.upstream/4.19.249

Signed-off-by: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org>

1 files changed, 637 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst b/Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..c9856b927
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,637 @@
+=================================
+HOWTO interact with BPF subsystem
+=================================
+
+This document provides information for the BPF subsystem about various
+workflows related to reporting bugs, submitting patches, and queueing
+patches for stable kernels.
+
+For general information about submitting patches, please refer to
+`Documentation/process/`_. This document only describes additional specifics
+related to BPF.
+
+.. contents::
+    :local:
+    :depth: 2
+
+Reporting bugs
+==============
+
+Q: How do I report bugs for BPF kernel code?
+--------------------------------------------
+A: Since all BPF kernel development as well as bpftool and iproute2 BPF
+loader development happens through the netdev kernel mailing list,
+please report any found issues around BPF to the following mailing
+list:
+
+ netdev@vger.kernel.org
+
+This may also include issues related to XDP, BPF tracing, etc.
+
+Given netdev has a high volume of traffic, please also add the BPF
+maintainers to Cc (from kernel MAINTAINERS_ file):
+
+* Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
+* Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
+
+In case a buggy commit has already been identified, make sure to keep
+the actual commit authors in Cc as well for the report. They can
+typically be identified through the kernel's git tree.
+
+**Please do NOT report BPF issues to bugzilla.kernel.org since it
+is a guarantee that the reported issue will be overlooked.**
+
+Submitting patches
+==================
+
+Q: To which mailing list do I need to submit my BPF patches?
+------------------------------------------------------------
+A: Please submit your BPF patches to the netdev kernel mailing list:
+
+ netdev@vger.kernel.org
+
+Historically, BPF came out of networking and has always been maintained
+by the kernel networking community. Although these days BPF touches
+many other subsystems as well, the patches are still routed mainly
+through the networking community.
+
+In case your patch has changes in various different subsystems (e.g.
+tracing, security, etc), make sure to Cc the related kernel mailing
+lists and maintainers from there as well, so they are able to review
+the changes and provide their Acked-by's to the patches.
+
+Q: Where can I find patches currently under discussion for BPF subsystem?
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
+A: All patches that are Cc'ed to netdev are queued for review under netdev
+patchwork project:
+
+  http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/list/
+
+Those patches which target BPF, are assigned to a 'bpf' delegate for
+further processing from BPF maintainers. The current queue with
+patches under review can be found at:
+
+  https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/list/?delegate=77147
+
+Once the patches have been reviewed by the BPF community as a whole
+and approved by the BPF maintainers, their status in patchwork will be
+changed to 'Accepted' and the submitter will be notified by mail. This
+means that the patches look good from a BPF perspective and have been
+applied to one of the two BPF kernel trees.
+
+In case feedback from the community requires a respin of the patches,
+their status in patchwork will be set to 'Changes Requested', and purged
+from the current review queue. Likewise for cases where patches would
+get rejected or are not applicable to the BPF trees (but assigned to
+the 'bpf' delegate).
+
+Q: How do the changes make their way into Linux?
+------------------------------------------------
+A: There are two BPF kernel trees (git repositories). Once patches have
+been accepted by the BPF maintainers, they will be applied to one
+of the two BPF trees:
+
+ * https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf.git/
+ * https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git/
+
+The bpf tree itself is for fixes only, whereas bpf-next for features,
+cleanups or other kind of improvements ("next-like" content). This is
+analogous to net and net-next trees for networking. Both bpf and
+bpf-next will only have a master branch in order to simplify against
+which branch patches should get rebased to.
+
+Accumulated BPF patches in the bpf tree will regularly get pulled
+into the net kernel tree. Likewise, accumulated BPF patches accepted
+into the bpf-next tree will make their way into net-next tree. net and
+net-next are both run by David S. Miller. From there, they will go
+into the kernel mainline tree run by Linus Torvalds. To read up on the
+process of net and net-next being merged into the mainline tree, see
+the :ref:`netdev-FAQ`
+
+
+
+Occasionally, to prevent merge conflicts, we might send pull requests
+to other trees (e.g. tracing) with a small subset of the patches, but
+net and net-next are always the main trees targeted for integration.
+
+The pull requests will contain a high-level summary of the accumulated
+patches and can be searched on netdev kernel mailing list through the
+following subject lines (``yyyy-mm-dd`` is the date of the pull
+request)::
+
+  pull-request: bpf yyyy-mm-dd
+  pull-request: bpf-next yyyy-mm-dd
+
+Q: How do I indicate which tree (bpf vs. bpf-next) my patch should be applied to?
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+A: The process is the very same as described in the :ref:`netdev-FAQ`,
+so please read up on it. The subject line must indicate whether the
+patch is a fix or rather "next-like" content in order to let the
+maintainers know whether it is targeted at bpf or bpf-next.
+
+For fixes eventually landing in bpf -> net tree, the subject must
+look like::
+
+  git format-patch --subject-prefix='PATCH bpf' start..finish
+
+For features/improvements/etc that should eventually land in
+bpf-next -> net-next, the subject must look like::
+
+  git format-patch --subject-prefix='PATCH bpf-next' start..finish
+
+If unsure whether the patch or patch series should go into bpf
+or net directly, or bpf-next or net-next directly, it is not a
+problem either if the subject line says net or net-next as target.
+It is eventually up to the maintainers to do the delegation of
+the patches.
+
+If it is clear that patches should go into bpf or bpf-next tree,
+please make sure to rebase the patches against those trees in
+order to reduce potential conflicts.
+
+In case the patch or patch series has to be reworked and sent out
+again in a second or later revision, it is also required to add a
+version number (``v2``, ``v3``, ...) into the subject prefix::
+
+  git format-patch --subject-prefix='PATCH net-next v2' start..finish
+
+When changes have been requested to the patch series, always send the
+whole patch series again with the feedback incorporated (never send
+individual diffs on top of the old series).
+
+Q: What does it mean when a patch gets applied to bpf or bpf-next tree?
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------
+A: It means that the patch looks good for mainline inclusion from
+a BPF point of view.
+
+Be aware that this is not a final verdict that the patch will
+automatically get accepted into net or net-next trees eventually:
+
+On the netdev kernel mailing list reviews can come in at any point
+in time. If discussions around a patch conclude that they cannot
+get included as-is, we will either apply a follow-up fix or drop
+them from the trees entirely. Therefore, we also reserve to rebase
+the trees when deemed necessary. After all, the purpose of the tree
+is to:
+
+i) accumulate and stage BPF patches for integration into trees
+   like net and net-next, and
+
+ii) run extensive BPF test suite and
+    workloads on the patches before they make their way any further.
+
+Once the BPF pull request was accepted by David S. Miller, then
+the patches end up in net or net-next tree, respectively, and
+make their way from there further into mainline. Again, see the
+:ref:`netdev-FAQ` for additional information e.g. on how often they are
+merged to mainline.
+
+Q: How long do I need to wait for feedback on my BPF patches?
+-------------------------------------------------------------
+A: We try to keep the latency low. The usual time to feedback will
+be around 2 or 3 business days. It may vary depending on the
+complexity of changes and current patch load.
+
+Q: How often do you send pull requests to major kernel trees like net or net-next?
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+A: Pull requests will be sent out rather often in order to not
+accumulate too many patches in bpf or bpf-next.
+
+As a rule of thumb, expect pull requests for each tree regularly
+at the end of the week. In some cases pull requests could additionally
+come also in the middle of the week depending on the current patch
+load or urgency.
+
+Q: Are patches applied to bpf-next when the merge window is open?
+-----------------------------------------------------------------
+A: For the time when the merge window is open, bpf-next will not be
+processed. This is roughly analogous to net-next patch processing,
+so feel free to read up on the :ref:`netdev-FAQ` about further details.
+
+During those two weeks of merge window, we might ask you to resend
+your patch series once bpf-next is open again. Once Linus released
+a ``v*-rc1`` after the merge window, we continue processing of bpf-next.
+
+For non-subscribers to kernel mailing lists, there is also a status
+page run by David S. Miller on net-next that provides guidance:
+
+  http://vger.kernel.org/~davem/net-next.html
+
+Q: Verifier changes and test cases
+----------------------------------
+Q: I made a BPF verifier change, do I need to add test cases for
+BPF kernel selftests_?
+
+A: If the patch has changes to the behavior of the verifier, then yes,
+it is absolutely necessary to add test cases to the BPF kernel
+selftests_ suite. If they are not present and we think they are
+needed, then we might ask for them before accepting any changes.
+
+In particular, test_verifier.c is tracking a high number of BPF test
+cases, including a lot of corner cases that LLVM BPF back end may
+generate out of the restricted C code. Thus, adding test cases is
+absolutely crucial to make sure future changes do not accidentally
+affect prior use-cases. Thus, treat those test cases as: verifier
+behavior that is not tracked in test_verifier.c could potentially
+be subject to change.
+
+Q: samples/bpf preference vs selftests?
+---------------------------------------
+Q: When should I add code to `samples/bpf/`_ and when to BPF kernel
+selftests_ ?
+
+A: In general, we prefer additions to BPF kernel selftests_ rather than
+`samples/bpf/`_. The rationale is very simple: kernel selftests are
+regularly run by various bots to test for kernel regressions.
+
+The more test cases we add to BPF selftests, the better the coverage
+and the less likely it is that those could accidentally break. It is
+not that BPF kernel selftests cannot demo how a specific feature can
+be used.
+
+That said, `samples/bpf/`_ may be a good place for people to get started,
+so it might be advisable that simple demos of features could go into
+`samples/bpf/`_, but advanced functional and corner-case testing rather
+into kernel selftests.
+
+If your sample looks like a test case, then go for BPF kernel selftests
+instead!
+
+Q: When should I add code to the bpftool?
+-----------------------------------------
+A: The main purpose of bpftool (under tools/bpf/bpftool/) is to provide
+a central user space tool for debugging and introspection of BPF programs
+and maps that are active in the kernel. If UAPI changes related to BPF
+enable for dumping additional information of programs or maps, then
+bpftool should be extended as well to support dumping them.
+
+Q: When should I add code to iproute2's BPF loader?
+---------------------------------------------------
+A: For UAPI changes related to the XDP or tc layer (e.g. ``cls_bpf``),
+the convention is that those control-path related changes are added to
+iproute2's BPF loader as well from user space side. This is not only
+useful to have UAPI changes properly designed to be usable, but also
+to make those changes available to a wider user base of major
+downstream distributions.
+
+Q: Do you accept patches as well for iproute2's BPF loader?
+-----------------------------------------------------------
+A: Patches for the iproute2's BPF loader have to be sent to:
+
+  netdev@vger.kernel.org
+
+While those patches are not processed by the BPF kernel maintainers,
+please keep them in Cc as well, so they can be reviewed.
+
+The official git repository for iproute2 is run by Stephen Hemminger
+and can be found at:
+
+  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/shemminger/iproute2.git/
+
+The patches need to have a subject prefix of '``[PATCH iproute2
+master]``' or '``[PATCH iproute2 net-next]``'. '``master``' or
+'``net-next``' describes the target branch where the patch should be
+applied to. Meaning, if kernel changes went into the net-next kernel
+tree, then the related iproute2 changes need to go into the iproute2
+net-next branch, otherwise they can be targeted at master branch. The
+iproute2 net-next branch will get merged into the master branch after
+the current iproute2 version from master has been released.
+
+Like BPF, the patches end up in patchwork under the netdev project and
+are delegated to 'shemminger' for further processing:
+
+  http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/list/?delegate=389
+
+Q: What is the minimum requirement before I submit my BPF patches?
+------------------------------------------------------------------
+A: When submitting patches, always take the time and properly test your
+patches *prior* to submission. Never rush them! If maintainers find
+that your patches have not been properly tested, it is a good way to
+get them grumpy. Testing patch submissions is a hard requirement!
+
+Note, fixes that go to bpf tree *must* have a ``Fixes:`` tag included.
+The same applies to fixes that target bpf-next, where the affected
+commit is in net-next (or in some cases bpf-next). The ``Fixes:`` tag is
+crucial in order to identify follow-up commits and tremendously helps
+for people having to do backporting, so it is a must have!
+
+We also don't accept patches with an empty commit message. Take your
+time and properly write up a high quality commit message, it is
+essential!
+
+Think about it this way: other developers looking at your code a month
+from now need to understand *why* a certain change has been done that
+way, and whether there have been flaws in the analysis or assumptions
+that the original author did. Thus providing a proper rationale and
+describing the use-case for the changes is a must.
+
+Patch submissions with >1 patch must have a cover letter which includes
+a high level description of the series. This high level summary will
+then be placed into the merge commit by the BPF maintainers such that
+it is also accessible from the git log for future reference.
+
+Q: Features changing BPF JIT and/or LLVM
+----------------------------------------
+Q: What do I need to consider when adding a new instruction or feature
+that would require BPF JIT and/or LLVM integration as well?
+
+A: We try hard to keep all BPF JITs up to date such that the same user
+experience can be guaranteed when running BPF programs on different
+architectures without having the program punt to the less efficient
+interpreter in case the in-kernel BPF JIT is enabled.
+
+If you are unable to implement or test the required JIT changes for
+certain architectures, please work together with the related BPF JIT
+developers in order to get the feature implemented in a timely manner.
+Please refer to the git log (``arch/*/net/``) to locate the necessary
+people for helping out.
+
+Also always make sure to add BPF test cases (e.g. test_bpf.c and
+test_verifier.c) for new instructions, so that they can receive
+broad test coverage and help run-time testing the various BPF JITs.
+
+In case of new BPF instructions, once the changes have been accepted
+into the Linux kernel, please implement support into LLVM's BPF back
+end. See LLVM_ section below for further information.
+
+Stable submission
+=================
+
+Q: I need a specific BPF commit in stable kernels. What should I do?
+--------------------------------------------------------------------
+A: In case you need a specific fix in stable kernels, first check whether
+the commit has already been applied in the related ``linux-*.y`` branches:
+
+  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/
+
+If not the case, then drop an email to the BPF maintainers with the
+netdev kernel mailing list in Cc and ask for the fix to be queued up:
+
+  netdev@vger.kernel.org
+
+The process in general is the same as on netdev itself, see also the
+:ref:`netdev-FAQ`.
+
+Q: Do you also backport to kernels not currently maintained as stable?
+----------------------------------------------------------------------
+A: No. If you need a specific BPF commit in kernels that are currently not
+maintained by the stable maintainers, then you are on your own.
+
+The current stable and longterm stable kernels are all listed here:
+
+  https://www.kernel.org/
+
+Q: The BPF patch I am about to submit needs to go to stable as well
+-------------------------------------------------------------------
+What should I do?
+
+A: The same rules apply as with netdev patch submissions in general, see
+the :ref:`netdev-FAQ`.
+
+Never add "``Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org``" to the patch description, but
+ask the BPF maintainers to queue the patches instead. This can be done
+with a note, for example, under the ``---`` part of the patch which does
+not go into the git log. Alternatively, this can be done as a simple
+request by mail instead.
+
+Q: Queue stable patches
+-----------------------
+Q: Where do I find currently queued BPF patches that will be submitted
+to stable?
+
+A: Once patches that fix critical bugs got applied into the bpf tree, they
+are queued up for stable submission under:
+
+  http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/bundle/bpf/stable/?state=*
+
+They will be on hold there at minimum until the related commit made its
+way into the mainline kernel tree.
+
+After having been under broader exposure, the queued patches will be
+submitted by the BPF maintainers to the stable maintainers.
+
+Testing patches
+===============
+
+Q: How to run BPF selftests
+---------------------------
+A: After you have booted into the newly compiled kernel, navigate to
+the BPF selftests_ suite in order to test BPF functionality (current
+working directory points to the root of the cloned git tree)::
+
+  $ cd tools/testing/selftests/bpf/
+  $ make
+
+To run the verifier tests::
+
+  $ sudo ./test_verifier
+
+The verifier tests print out all the current checks being
+performed. The summary at the end of running all tests will dump
+information of test successes and failures::
+
+  Summary: 418 PASSED, 0 FAILED
+
+In order to run through all BPF selftests, the following command is
+needed::
+
+  $ sudo make run_tests
+
+See the kernels selftest `Documentation/dev-tools/kselftest.rst`_
+document for further documentation.
+
+Q: Which BPF kernel selftests version should I run my kernel against?
+---------------------------------------------------------------------
+A: If you run a kernel ``xyz``, then always run the BPF kernel selftests
+from that kernel ``xyz`` as well. Do not expect that the BPF selftest
+from the latest mainline tree will pass all the time.
+
+In particular, test_bpf.c and test_verifier.c have a large number of
+test cases and are constantly updated with new BPF test sequences, or
+existing ones are adapted to verifier changes e.g. due to verifier
+becoming smarter and being able to better track certain things.
+
+LLVM
+====
+
+Q: Where do I find LLVM with BPF support?
+-----------------------------------------
+A: The BPF back end for LLVM is upstream in LLVM since version 3.7.1.
+
+All major distributions these days ship LLVM with BPF back end enabled,
+so for the majority of use-cases it is not required to compile LLVM by
+hand anymore, just install the distribution provided package.
+
+LLVM's static compiler lists the supported targets through
+``llc --version``, make sure BPF targets are listed. Example::
+
+     $ llc --version
+     LLVM (http://llvm.org/):
+       LLVM version 6.0.0svn
+       Optimized build.
+       Default target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
+       Host CPU: skylake
+
+       Registered Targets:
+         bpf    - BPF (host endian)
+         bpfeb  - BPF (big endian)
+         bpfel  - BPF (little endian)
+         x86    - 32-bit X86: Pentium-Pro and above
+         x86-64 - 64-bit X86: EM64T and AMD64
+
+For developers in order to utilize the latest features added to LLVM's
+BPF back end, it is advisable to run the latest LLVM releases. Support
+for new BPF kernel features such as additions to the BPF instruction
+set are often developed together.
+
+All LLVM releases can be found at: http://releases.llvm.org/
+
+Q: Got it, so how do I build LLVM manually anyway?
+--------------------------------------------------
+A: You need cmake and gcc-c++ as build requisites for LLVM. Once you have
+that set up, proceed with building the latest LLVM and clang version
+from the git repositories::
+
+     $ git clone http://llvm.org/git/llvm.git
+     $ cd llvm/tools
+     $ git clone --depth 1 http://llvm.org/git/clang.git
+     $ cd ..; mkdir build; cd build
+     $ cmake .. -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD="BPF;X86" \
+                -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=OFF           \
+                -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release        \
+                -DLLVM_BUILD_RUNTIME=OFF
+     $ make -j $(getconf _NPROCESSORS_ONLN)
+
+The built binaries can then be found in the build/bin/ directory, where
+you can point the PATH variable to.
+
+Q: Reporting LLVM BPF issues
+----------------------------
+Q: Should I notify BPF kernel maintainers about issues in LLVM's BPF code
+generation back end or about LLVM generated code that the verifier
+refuses to accept?
+
+A: Yes, please do!
+
+LLVM's BPF back end is a key piece of the whole BPF
+infrastructure and it ties deeply into verification of programs from the
+kernel side. Therefore, any issues on either side need to be investigated
+and fixed whenever necessary.
+
+Therefore, please make sure to bring them up at netdev kernel mailing
+list and Cc BPF maintainers for LLVM and kernel bits:
+
+* Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
+* Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
+* Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
+
+LLVM also has an issue tracker where BPF related bugs can be found:
+
+  https://bugs.llvm.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=bpf
+
+However, it is better to reach out through mailing lists with having
+maintainers in Cc.
+
+Q: New BPF instruction for kernel and LLVM
+------------------------------------------
+Q: I have added a new BPF instruction to the kernel, how can I integrate
+it into LLVM?
+
+A: LLVM has a ``-mcpu`` selector for the BPF back end in order to allow
+the selection of BPF instruction set extensions. By default the
+``generic`` processor target is used, which is the base instruction set
+(v1) of BPF.
+
+LLVM has an option to select ``-mcpu=probe`` where it will probe the host
+kernel for supported BPF instruction set extensions and selects the
+optimal set automatically.
+
+For cross-compilation, a specific version can be select manually as well ::
+
+     $ llc -march bpf -mcpu=help
+     Available CPUs for this target:
+
+       generic - Select the generic processor.
+       probe   - Select the probe processor.
+       v1      - Select the v1 processor.
+       v2      - Select the v2 processor.
+     [...]
+
+Newly added BPF instructions to the Linux kernel need to follow the same
+scheme, bump the instruction set version and implement probing for the
+extensions such that ``-mcpu=probe`` users can benefit from the
+optimization transparently when upgrading their kernels.
+
+If you are unable to implement support for the newly added BPF instruction
+please reach out to BPF developers for help.
+
+By the way, the BPF kernel selftests run with ``-mcpu=probe`` for better
+test coverage.
+
+Q: clang flag for target bpf?
+-----------------------------
+Q: In some cases clang flag ``-target bpf`` is used but in other cases the
+default clang target, which matches the underlying architecture, is used.
+What is the difference and when I should use which?
+
+A: Although LLVM IR generation and optimization try to stay architecture
+independent, ``-target <arch>`` still has some impact on generated code:
+
+- BPF program may recursively include header file(s) with file scope
+  inline assembly codes. The default target can handle this well,
+  while ``bpf`` target may fail if bpf backend assembler does not
+  understand these assembly codes, which is true in most cases.
+
+- When compiled without ``-g``, additional elf sections, e.g.,
+  .eh_frame and .rela.eh_frame, may be present in the object file
+  with default target, but not with ``bpf`` target.
+
+- The default target may turn a C switch statement into a switch table
+  lookup and jump operation. Since the switch table is placed
+  in the global readonly section, the bpf program will fail to load.
+  The bpf target does not support switch table optimization.
+  The clang option ``-fno-jump-tables`` can be used to disable
+  switch table generation.
+
+- For clang ``-target bpf``, it is guaranteed that pointer or long /
+  unsigned long types will always have a width of 64 bit, no matter
+  whether underlying clang binary or default target (or kernel) is
+  32 bit. However, when native clang target is used, then it will
+  compile these types based on the underlying architecture's conventions,
+  meaning in case of 32 bit architecture, pointer or long / unsigned
+  long types e.g. in BPF context structure will have width of 32 bit
+  while the BPF LLVM back end still operates in 64 bit. The native
+  target is mostly needed in tracing for the case of walking ``pt_regs``
+  or other kernel structures where CPU's register width matters.
+  Otherwise, ``clang -target bpf`` is generally recommended.
+
+You should use default target when:
+
+- Your program includes a header file, e.g., ptrace.h, which eventually
+  pulls in some header files containing file scope host assembly codes.
+
+- You can add ``-fno-jump-tables`` to work around the switch table issue.
+
+Otherwise, you can use ``bpf`` target. Additionally, you *must* use bpf target
+when:
+
+- Your program uses data structures with pointer or long / unsigned long
+  types that interface with BPF helpers or context data structures. Access
+  into these structures is verified by the BPF verifier and may result
+  in verification failures if the native architecture is not aligned with
+  the BPF architecture, e.g. 64-bit. An example of this is
+  BPF_PROG_TYPE_SK_MSG require ``-target bpf``
+
+
+.. Links
+.. _Documentation/process/: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/
+.. _MAINTAINERS: ../../MAINTAINERS
+.. _netdev-FAQ: ../networking/netdev-FAQ.rst
+.. _samples/bpf/: ../../samples/bpf/
+.. _selftests: ../../tools/testing/selftests/bpf/
+.. _Documentation/dev-tools/kselftest.rst:
+   https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/dev-tools/kselftest.html
+
+Happy BPF hacking!