[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87sgse26av.fsf@netronome.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 16:04:56 +0100
From: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@...ronome.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@...ronome.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: optimize constant blinding
Alexei Starovoitov writes:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 4:32 AM Naveen N. Rao
> <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>> Currently, for constant blinding, we re-allocate the bpf program to
>> account for its new size and adjust all branches to accommodate the
>> same, for each BPF instruction that needs constant blinding. This is
>> inefficient and can lead to soft lockup with sufficiently large
>> programs, such as the new verifier scalability test (ld_dw: xor
>> semi-random 64 bit imms, test 5 -- with net.core.bpf_jit_harden=2)
>
> Slowdown you see is due to patch_insn right?
> In such case I prefer to fix the scaling issue of patch_insn instead.
> This specific fix for blinding only is not addressing the core of the problem.
> Jiong,
> how is the progress on fixing patch_insn?
I actually was about to reply this email as we have discussed exactly the
same issue on jit blinding here:
https://www.spinics.net/lists/bpf/msg01836.html
And sorry for the slow progress on fixing patch_insn, please give me one
more week, I will try to send out a RFC for it.
Regards,
Jiong
Powered by blists - more mailing lists