public inbox for bpf@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
	bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net
Cc: andrii@kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 3/3] bpf: remove unnecessary prune and jump points
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2022 17:28:51 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <638fec5317631_b86520813@john.notmuch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221206233345.438540-4-andrii@kernel.org>

Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> Don't mark some instructions as jump points when there are actually no
> jumps and instructions are just processed sequentially. Such case is
> handled naturally by precision backtracking logic without the need to
> update jump history. See get_prev_insn_idx(). It goes back linearly by
> one instruction, unless current top of jmp_history is pointing to
> current instruction. In such case we use `st->jmp_history[cnt - 1].prev_idx`
> to find instruction from which we jumped to the current instruction
> non-linearly.
> 
> Also remove both jump and prune point marking for instruction right
> after unconditional jumps, as program flow can get to the instruction
> right after unconditional jump instruction only if there is a jump to
> that instruction from somewhere else in the program. In such case we'll
> mark such instruction as prune/jump point because it's a destination of
> a jump.
> 
> This change has no changes in terms of number of instructions or states
> processes across Cilium and selftests programs.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
> ---

Thanks.

Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>

  reply	other threads:[~2022-12-07  1:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-12-06 23:33 [PATCH v2 bpf-next 0/3] Refactor verifier prune and jump point handling Andrii Nakryiko
2022-12-06 23:33 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 1/3] bpf: decouple prune and jump points Andrii Nakryiko
2022-12-06 23:33 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 2/3] bpf: mostly decouple jump history management from is_state_visited() Andrii Nakryiko
2022-12-06 23:33 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 3/3] bpf: remove unnecessary prune and jump points Andrii Nakryiko
2022-12-07  1:28   ` John Fastabend [this message]
2022-12-07  3:17   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-12-07 18:36     ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-12-07 18:39       ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-12-07  3:30 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 0/3] Refactor verifier prune and jump point handling patchwork-bot+netdevbpf

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=638fec5317631_b86520813@john.notmuch \
    --to=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox