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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 11:53:54 -0700 From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com> To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, 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>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v3 net-next 3/3] samples: bpf: eBPF dropmon example in C On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Frank Ch. Eigler <fche@...hat.com> wrote: >> > What kind of locking/serialization is provided by the ebpf runtime >> > over shared variables such as my_map? >> >> it's traditional rcu scheme. > > OK, that protects the table structure, but: > >> [...] In such case concurrent write access to map value can be done >> with bpf_xadd instruction, though using normal read/write is also >> allowed. In some cases the speed of racy var++ is preferred over >> 'lock xadd'. > > ... so concurrency control over shared values is left up to the > programmer. yes. It has to be flexible and fast. One of our main use cases is network analytics where a lot of packets are going through ebpf programs, so every cycle counts. Mandatory locks in critical path are not acceptable. If we add locks they will be optional. >> There are no lock/unlock function helpers available to ebpf >> programs, since program may terminate early with div by zero >> for example, so in-kernel lock helper implementation would >> be complicated and slow. It's possible to do, but for the use >> cases so far there is no need. > > OK, I hope that works out. I've been told that dtrace does something > similiar (!) by eschewing protection on global variables such as > strings. In their case it's less bad than it sounds because they are > used to offloading computation to userspace or to store only > thread-local state, and accept the corollary limitations on control. interesting. btw, things like global variables, per-cpu storage are potential ebpf features. So far they're 'nice to have' instead of 'mandatory'. The maps are powerful enough to do the same: Global storage is map of one element. Per-cpu storage is map of num_cpu elements. -- 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