[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53EBD5B3.10200@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 14:16:35 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>,
Chema Gonzalez <chema@...gle.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v4 net-next 01/26] net: filter: add "load 64-bit immediate"
eBPF instruction
On 08/13/2014 02:02 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>>
>> The compiler can still think of it as a single insn, though, but some
>> future compiler might not.
>
> I think that would be very dangerous.
> compiler (user space) and kernel interpreter must have the same
> understanding of ISA.
>
Only at the point of the interface layer. The compiler can treat it as
a single instruction internally, the JIT can do peephole optimization,
but as long as the instruction stream at the boundary matches the
official ISA spec everything is fine.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists