[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHgaXdLtX6yLdU3bMvS=g8FZ79sM_BW_+hHTMH=Mfk4TZqUnpw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 07:04:54 +0530
From: Shubham Bansal <illusionist.neo@...il.com>
To: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm: eBPF JIT compiler
Hi Daniel,
>
> Sorry, had a travel over the weekend, so didn't read it in time.
>
> What is the issue with imitating in JIT what the interpreter is
> doing as a starting point? That should be generic enough to handle
> any case.
>
> Otherwise you'd need some sort of reverse mapping since verifier
> already converted BPF_CALL insns into relative helper addresses
> in imm part.
>
Sorry but I don't get what you are trying to say. Can you explain it
with an example?
-Shubham
Powered by blists - more mailing lists