[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202002211415.4111F356A@keescook>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:15:32 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Sebastian Sewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 09/19] bpf: Use BPF_PROG_RUN_PIN_ON_CPU() at simple
call sites.
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 03:00:54PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> writes:
> > They're technically independent, but they are related to each
> > other. (i.e. order matters, process hierarchy matters, etc). There's no
> > reason I can see that we can't switch CPUs between running them, though.
> > (AIUI, nothing here would suddenly make these run in parallel, right?)
>
> Of course not. If we'd run the same thread on multiple CPUs in parallel
> the ordering of your BPF programs would be the least of your worries.
Right, okay, good. I just wanted to be extra sure. :)
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists