[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrVNwOVRJ4KH6mEo4hPq_QjTCb8mcwRf1sy5kd1nmnSZ+A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 09:20:46 -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>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Michael Holzheu <holzheu@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Zi Shen Lim <zlim.lnx@...il.com>,
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 net-next 1/4] bpf: allow bpf programs to tail-call other
bpf programs
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com> wrote:
> On 5/19/15 5:13 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>>
>> IMO this is starting to get a bit ugly. Would it be possible to have
>> the program dereference the subprogram reference itself from the jump
>> table? There would have to be a verifier type that represents a
>> reference to a program tail-call entry point, but that seems better
>> than having this weird indirection.
>
>
> Which part? I don't think you've looked at examples yet.
> network parser has to call itself. Otherwise we cannot parse 10 mpls
> labels or TLVs.
> Indirection via jump_table also has to be there.
> We need to dynamically add and remove programs form this jump table.
> It cannot be all static.
>
What I mean is: why do we need the interface to be "look up this index
in an array and just to what it references" as a single atomic
instruction? Can't we break it down into first "look up this index in
an array" and then "do this tail call"?
I don't see why everything needs to be a map.
--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