[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=-Kr7OpSSz1aTQxTEwaOwf_m6hPDr24vYw_z75@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 07:31:51 +0800
From: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>
To: Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@...u.net>
Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
davem@...emloft.net, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
drosenberg@...curity.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] filter: Optimize instruction revalidation code.
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 6:13 AM, Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@...u.net> wrote:
> * Tetsuo Handa | 2010-11-16 22:08:50 [+0900]:
>
>>--- a/net/core/filter.c
>>+++ b/net/core/filter.c
>>@@ -383,7 +383,57 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(sk_run_filter);
>> */
>> int sk_chk_filter(struct sock_filter *filter, int flen)
>> {
>>- struct sock_filter *ftest;
>>+ /*
>>+ * Valid instructions are initialized to non-0.
>>+ * Invalid instructions are initialized to 0.
>>+ */
>>+ static u16 codes[] = {
>>+ [BPF_ALU|BPF_ADD|BPF_K] = BPF_S_ALU_ADD_K + 1,
>>+ [BPF_ALU|BPF_ADD|BPF_X] = BPF_S_ALU_ADD_X + 1,
>>+ [BPF_ALU|BPF_SUB|BPF_K] = BPF_S_ALU_SUB_K + 1,
> [...]
>
> Maybe I don't get it, but you increment the opcode by one, but you never
> increment the opcode in sk_run_filter() - do I miss something? Did you test
> the your patch (a trivial tcpdump rule should be sufficient)?
>
+ code = codes[code];
+ if (!code--)
+ return -EINVAL;
But how about this:
enum {
BPF_S_RET_K = 1,
--
Regards,
Changli Gao(xiaosuo@...il.com)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists