[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrUt1yLXTt5pDZJd0s4s+4dhs0LB7tbJYd6p1+EbdNWw7w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 11:25:23 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>,
Chema Gonzalez <chema@...gle.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 net-next 10/16] bpf: add eBPF verifier
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com> wrote:
> Safety of eBPF programs is statically determined by the verifier, which detects:
> - loops
> - out of range jumps
> - unreachable instructions
> - invalid instructions
> - uninitialized register access
> - uninitialized stack access
> - misaligned stack access
> - out of range stack access
> - invalid calling convention
Is there something that documents exactly what conditions an eBPF
program must satisfy in order to be considered valid?
--Andy
--
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