[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1289980137.2732.280.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 08:48:57 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: mjt@....msk.ru, davem@...emloft.net, drosenberg@...curity.com,
hagen@...u.net, xiaosuo@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] filter: Optimize instruction revalidation code.
Le mercredi 17 novembre 2010 à 10:19 +0900, Tetsuo Handa a écrit :
> Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > I dont understand the problem...
> > Once translated, you have to test the translated code, not the original
> > one ;)
>
> I moved the test to after translation.
>
> > why u16 ?
> >
> > You store translated instructions, so u8 is OK
>
> I chose u16 because type of filter->code is __u16.
> But I changed to use u8 as you suggested that translated code fits in u8.
>
> > Also fix the indentation at the end of sk_chk_filter()
> >
> > You have 3 extra tabulations :
>
> Fixed.
>
> Hagen Paul Pfeifer wrote:
> > 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)?
>
> I added a comment line.
>
> Changli Gao wrote:
> > > + struct sock_filter *ftest = &filter[pc];
> >
> > Why move the define here?
>
> To suppress compiler's warning about mixed declaration.
>
> > > + u16 code = ftest->code;
> > >
> > > + if (code >= ARRAY_SIZE(codes))
> > > + return 0;
> >
> > return -EINVAL;
>
> Fixed in v2. Thanks.
>
> > But how about this:
> >
> > enum {
> > BPF_S_RET_K = 1,
>
> If BPF_S_* are only for kernel internal use, I think we don't need to translate
> from the beginning because only net/core/filter.c uses BPF_S_*.
>
> BPF_S_* are exposed to userspace via /usr/include/linux/filter.h since 2.6.36.
> Is it no problem to change?
No problem, and Changli posted patch to move them to net/core/filter.c
anyway.
>
> Filesize change (x86_32) by this patch:
> gcc 3.3.5: 7184 -> 5060
> gcc 4.4.3: 7972 -> 5588
> ----------------------------------------
> From b8777ab64bc31dbbe499eb62c2ffd29add7e79c8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 09:46:33 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH v3] filter: Optimize instruction revalidation code.
>
> Since repeating u16 value to u8 value conversion using switch() clause's
> case statement is wasteful, this patch introduces u16 to u8 mapping table
> and removes most of case statements. As a result, the size of net/core/filter.o
> is reduced by about 29% on x86.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
> ---
> net/core/filter.c | 231 +++++++++++++++++------------------------------------
> 1 files changed, 72 insertions(+), 159 deletions(-)
>
Acked-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Please repost it when Changli patch is accepted by David
(if accepted :)), to get rid of the "+ 1"
--
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