From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
To: speck@linutronix.de
Subject: [MODERATED] Re: [PATCH 1/5] SSB extra 2
Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 07:04:53 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <90f19909-5f25-ece9-e2b0-3c8cedc60caf@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180504092050.GK12217@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 05/04/2018 02:20 AM, speck for Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> @@ -357,7 +357,9 @@ int bpf_prog_array_copy(struct bpf_prog_array __rcu *old_array,
>> goto _out; \
>> _prog = _array->progs; \
>> while ((__prog = READ_ONCE(*_prog))) { \
>> + bpf_enter_prog(__prog); \
>> _ret &= func(__prog, ctx); \
>> + bpf_leave_prog(__prog); \
>> _prog++; \
>> } \
>> _out: \
> So I actually had a look at this yesterday, and why did you choose to
> put these hooks at the prog callsites instead of inside the prog itself?
>
> It seems to me that placing them inside the program (either the
> interpreter or the jit) is much less invasive.
It's not a bad idea. This didn't seem *too* invasive other than I had
to hit all the variants of calling func().
Were you thinking we add some eBPF instruction which calls out to the
kernel machinery and then the kernel BPF code inserts it as the first
instruction of the program?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-04 14:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-03 22:29 [MODERATED] [PATCH 0/5] SSB extra 0 Dave Hansen
2018-05-03 22:29 ` [MODERATED] [PATCH 1/5] SSB extra 2 Dave Hansen
2018-05-03 22:29 ` [MODERATED] [PATCH 2/5] SSB extra 3 Dave Hansen
2018-05-03 22:29 ` [MODERATED] [PATCH 3/5] SSB extra 1 Dave Hansen
2018-05-03 22:29 ` [MODERATED] [PATCH 4/5] SSB extra 5 Dave Hansen
2018-05-03 22:29 ` [MODERATED] [PATCH 5/5] SSB extra 4 Dave Hansen
2018-05-03 23:27 ` [MODERATED] Re: [PATCH 0/5] SSB extra 0 Kees Cook
2018-05-04 1:37 ` Dave Hansen
2018-05-04 22:26 ` Kees Cook
2018-05-23 7:17 ` [MODERATED] cBPF affectedness (was Re: [PATCH 0/5] SSB extra 0) Jiri Kosina
2018-05-23 13:56 ` [MODERATED] " Alexei Starovoitov
2018-05-04 9:20 ` [MODERATED] Re: [PATCH 1/5] SSB extra 2 Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-04 14:04 ` Dave Hansen [this message]
2018-05-04 15:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-04 15:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-05-04 13:33 ` [PATCH 3/5] SSB extra 1 Thomas Gleixner
2018-05-04 14:22 ` [MODERATED] " Dave Hansen
2018-05-04 14:26 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-05-04 16:04 ` [MODERATED] " Andi Kleen
2018-05-04 16:09 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-05-04 16:28 ` [MODERATED] " Andi Kleen
2018-05-04 16:32 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-05-04 16:43 ` [MODERATED] " Dave Hansen
2018-05-04 18:39 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-05-06 8:32 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-05-06 21:48 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-05-06 22:40 ` [MODERATED] " Dave Hansen
2018-05-07 6:19 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-05-04 17:01 ` [MODERATED] Re: [PATCH 4/5] SSB extra 5 Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2018-05-21 9:56 ` [MODERATED] Re: [PATCH 5/5] SSB extra 4 Jiri Kosina
2018-05-21 13:38 ` Thomas Gleixner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=90f19909-5f25-ece9-e2b0-3c8cedc60caf@linux.intel.com \
--to=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=speck@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.