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]
Date:	Wed, 13 Aug 2014 16:34:59 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <>
To:	David Miller <>
Cc:	David Laight <>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	Linus Torvalds <>,
	Steven Rostedt <>,
	Daniel Borkmann <>,
	Chema Gonzalez <>,
	Eric Dumazet <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	Kees Cook <>,
	Linux API <>,
	Network Development <>,
	"" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v4 net-next 00/26] BPF syscall, maps, verifier,
 samples, llvm

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 4:25 PM, David Miller <> wrote:
> From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 08:52:30 +0000
>> From: Of Alexei Starovoitov
>>> one more RFC...
>>> Major difference vs previous set is a new 'load 64-bit immediate' eBPF insn.
>>> Which is first 16-byte instruction. It shows how eBPF ISA can be extended
>>> while maintaining backward compatibility, but mainly it cleans up eBPF
>>> program access to maps and improves run-time performance.
>> Wouldn't it be more sensible to follow the scheme used by a lot of cpus
>> and add a 'load high' instruction (follow with 'add' or 'or').
>> It still takes 16 bytes to load a 64bit immediate value, but the instruction
>> size remains constant.
>> There is nothing to stop any JIT software detecting the instruction pair.
> The opposite argument is that JITs can expand the IMM64 load into whatever
> sequence of instructions is most optimal.
> My only real gripe with IMM64 loads is that it's not mainly for
> loading an immediate, it's for loading a pointer.  And this
> distinction is important for some JITs.
> For example, on sparc64 all symbol based addresses are actually 32-bit
> because of the code model we use to compile the kernel and all modules.
> So if we knew this is a pointer load and it's to a symbol in a kernel
> or module image, we could do a 32-bit load.

This is true for x86_64 as well, I think.

(Almost.  For x86_64 we have a choice between a sign-extended load of
a value in the top 2GB of the address space and lea reg,offset(%rip).)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists