[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2017 15:05:07 +0200
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
CC: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
iovisor-dev <iovisor-dev@...ts.iovisor.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 00/12] bpf: rewrite value tracking in verifier
On 07/07/2017 02:50 PM, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 07/07/17 10:14, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> But this means the bpf_lxc_* cases increase quite significantly,
>> arguably one of them is pretty close already, but the other one not
>> so much, meaning while 142k would shoot over the 128k target quite a
>> bit, the 95k is quite close to the point that it wouldn't take much,
>> say, few different optimizations from compiler, to hit the limit as
>> well eventually, something like 156k for the time being would seem a
>> more adequate raise perhaps that needs to be evaluated carefully
>> given the situation.
> Note that the numbers in my table are the _sum_ of all the progs in the
> object file, not the #insns for a single program. (Hence the awk
> invocation in my pipeline.) For instance in bpf_lxc_opt_-DUNKNOWN.o
> on net-next there were (iirc) a couple of 30k progs and then some
> smaller ones, not a single 93k prog.
Okay, sorry, seems I misread in that case.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists