netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] BPF JIT for PPC64

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4E1A97CF.80509@ozlabs.org>
Date:	Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:27:27 +1000
From:	Matt Evans <matt@...abs.org>
To:	Andreas Schwab <schwab@...ux-m68k.org>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] BPF JIT for PPC64

On 25/06/11 17:33, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Matt Evans <matt@...abs.org> writes:
> 
>> +	stdu	r1, -128(r1);					\
> 
>> +	addi	r5, r1, 128+BPF_PPC_STACK_BASIC+(2*8);		\
> 
>> +	addi	r1, r1, 128;					\
> 
>> +					PPC_STD(r_M + i, 1, -128 + (8*i));
> 
>> +					PPC_LD(r_M + i, 1, -128 + (8*i));
> 
> s/128/BPF_PPC_STACK_SAVE/?

Actually, that's a different 128, but that nicely illustrates that I should've
#defined something more recognisable :-) The second set, with -128, is actually
in the save area for non-volatile regs, whereas the first is just a stackframe
size.

Cheers,


Matt
--
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