netdev - Re: [Q/RFC] BPF use in broader scope

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: <4FACBA82.1070404@gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 11 May 2012 15:06:42 +0800
From:	Li Yu <raise.sail@...il.com>
To:	Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>
CC:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	bhutchings@...arflare.com, shemminger@...tta.com, matt@...abs.org
Subject: Re: [Q/RFC] BPF use in broader scope

于 2012年05月11日 14:22, Jiri Pirko 写道:
> Fri, May 11, 2012 at 04:41:31AM CEST, raise.sail@...il.com wrote:
>> 于 2012年03月29日 17:31, Jiri Pirko 写道:
>>> Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:45:32AM CEST, eric.dumazet@...il.com wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2012-03-29 at 10:31 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>>> Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:02:25AM CEST, eric.dumazet@...il.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 2012-03-29 at 09:54 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yep, I'm aware. I must admit that the JIT code scares me a litte :(
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you add a new XOR instruction in interpreter only, JIT compiler will
>>>>>> automatically aborts, so no risk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Each arch maintainer will add the support for the new instructions as
>>>>>> separate patches.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you can focus on net/core/filter.c file only.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok - I can do this for 2). But for 3) JITs need to be modified. So I
>>>>> would like to kindly ask you and Matt if you can do this modification so
>>>>> bpf_func takes pointer to mem (scratch store) as second parameter. I'm
>>>>> sure it's very easy for you to do.
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure why you want this.
>>>>
>>>> This adds register pressure (at least for x86) ...
>>>
>>> Well I think that there would become handy to be able to pass some data
>>> to bpf_func (other than skb). But it's just an idea.
>>>
>>
>> Hi, Jiri Pirko, any progress of extended BPF? :)
>>
>> I am interesting in 3) much. For my requirements,
>> it just only need BPF has ability to handle arbitrary
>> "pre-filled memory area", but not handle both a skb and
>> such a memory area at same time, so I think that register
>> pressure should not be become the performance bottleneck
>> here.
>>
>> Otherwise, I must construct a fake sk_buff to execute filter
>> feature, it is ugly, isn't it?
>>
>> I guess that Nuno Martins's requirements also are similar.
>>
>> And, I also would like join this project, if you need.
>
> For my needs it turned out I do not need pre-filled memory. So I dropped
> that point.
>

Oops, I may try to work on this, would you like send
a copy of your sk-unattached filters patch to me ?
I think that it is a good start.

Thanks for your time.

Yu

>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Yu
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>

--
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