From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
To: Edward Cree <ecree@solarflare.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@fb.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
iovisor-dev <iovisor-dev@lists.iovisor.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 00/12] bpf: rewrite value tracking in verifier
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2017 15:05:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <595F8703.60301@iogearbox.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cf2cba1a-78d4-e893-1126-95c3c6a3d94f@solarflare.com>
On 07/07/2017 02:50 PM, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 07/07/17 10:14, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> But this means the bpf_lxc_* cases increase quite significantly,
>> arguably one of them is pretty close already, but the other one not
>> so much, meaning while 142k would shoot over the 128k target quite a
>> bit, the 95k is quite close to the point that it wouldn't take much,
>> say, few different optimizations from compiler, to hit the limit as
>> well eventually, something like 156k for the time being would seem a
>> more adequate raise perhaps that needs to be evaluated carefully
>> given the situation.
> Note that the numbers in my table are the _sum_ of all the progs in the
> object file, not the #insns for a single program. (Hence the awk
> invocation in my pipeline.) For instance in bpf_lxc_opt_-DUNKNOWN.o
> on net-next there were (iirc) a couple of 30k progs and then some
> smaller ones, not a single 93k prog.
Okay, sorry, seems I misread in that case.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-07 13:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-27 12:53 [PATCH v3 net-next 00/12] bpf: rewrite value tracking in verifier Edward Cree
2017-06-27 12:56 ` [PATCH v3 net-next 01/12] selftests/bpf: add test for mixed signed and unsigned bounds checks Edward Cree
2017-06-28 13:51 ` Daniel Borkmann
2017-06-27 12:56 ` [PATCH v3 net-next 02/12] bpf/verifier: rework value tracking Edward Cree
2017-06-28 15:15 ` Daniel Borkmann
2017-06-28 16:07 ` Edward Cree
2017-06-28 19:44 ` Daniel Borkmann
2017-06-28 17:09 ` Daniel Borkmann
2017-06-28 18:28 ` Edward Cree
2017-06-29 7:48 ` kbuild test robot
2017-07-06 21:21 ` [iovisor-dev] " Nadav Amit
2017-07-07 13:48 ` Edward Cree
2017-07-07 17:45 ` Nadav Amit
2017-07-08 0:54 ` Nadav Amit
2017-07-12 19:13 ` Edward Cree
2017-07-12 22:07 ` Nadav Amit
2017-07-17 17:02 ` Edward Cree
2017-06-27 12:57 ` [PATCH v3 net-next 03/12] nfp: change bpf verifier hooks to match new verifier data structures Edward Cree
2017-06-28 20:47 ` Daniel Borkmann
2017-06-29 3:47 ` Jakub Kicinski
2017-06-27 12:57 ` [PATCH v3 net-next 04/12] bpf/verifier: track signed and unsigned min/max values Edward Cree
2017-06-27 12:58 ` [PATCH v3 net-next 05/12] bpf/verifier: more concise register state logs for constant var_off Edward Cree
2017-06-27 12:58 ` [PATCH v3 net-next 06/12] selftests/bpf: change test_verifier expectations Edward Cree
2017-06-27 12:59 ` [PATCH v3 net-next 07/12] selftests/bpf: rewrite test_align Edward Cree
2017-06-27 12:59 ` [PATCH v3 net-next 08/12] selftests/bpf: add a test to test_align Edward Cree
2017-06-27 12:59 ` [PATCH v3 net-next 09/12] selftests/bpf: add test for bogus operations on pointers Edward Cree
2017-06-27 12:59 ` [PATCH v3 net-next 10/12] selftests/bpf: don't try to access past MAX_PACKET_OFF in test_verifier Edward Cree
2017-06-27 13:00 ` [PATCH v3 net-next 11/12] selftests/bpf: add tests for subtraction & negative numbers Edward Cree
2017-06-27 13:00 ` [PATCH v3 net-next 12/12] selftests/bpf: variable offset negative tests Edward Cree
2017-06-28 13:50 ` [PATCH v3 net-next 00/12] bpf: rewrite value tracking in verifier Daniel Borkmann
2017-06-28 14:11 ` Edward Cree
2017-06-28 20:38 ` Daniel Borkmann
2017-06-28 21:37 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2017-06-30 16:44 ` Edward Cree
2017-06-30 17:34 ` [TEST PATCH] bpf/verifier: roll back ptr&const handling, and fix signed bounds Edward Cree
2017-06-30 18:15 ` [PATCH v3 net-next 00/12] bpf: rewrite value tracking in verifier Alexei Starovoitov
2017-07-04 19:22 ` Edward Cree
2017-07-04 22:28 ` Daniel Borkmann
2017-07-06 18:27 ` Edward Cree
2017-07-07 9:14 ` Daniel Borkmann
2017-07-07 12:50 ` Edward Cree
2017-07-07 13:05 ` Daniel Borkmann [this message]
2017-07-06 14:07 ` Edward Cree
2017-07-14 20:03 ` [iovisor-dev] " Y Song
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=595F8703.60301@iogearbox.net \
--to=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=ast@fb.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=ecree@solarflare.com \
--cc=iovisor-dev@lists.iovisor.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/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