[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <843e6c44-1841-c253-b0c1-f0db5cb226ec@fb.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 18:23:51 -0800
From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
CC: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, <jannh@...gle.com>,
<alan@...ux.intel.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: introduce BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON config
On 1/8/18 4:02 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 22:59:04 +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>> @@ -1453,6 +1457,11 @@ struct bpf_prog *bpf_prog_select_runtime(struct bpf_prog *fp, int *err)
>>> */
>>> *err = bpf_check_tail_call(fp);
>>>
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON
>>> + if (!fp->jited)
>>> + *err = -ENOTSUPP;
>>> +#endif
>
> I think programs JITed for offload won't have fp->jited set, but
> those are pretty safe from CPU bugs. Should we set fp->jited = 1; in
> bpf_prog_offload_compile()? Just throwing "&& !bpf_prog_is_dev_bound()"
> in here seems cleaner to me.
good catch. will fix in the v2.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists