From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Pirko Subject: Re: [Q/RFC] BPF use in broader scope Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:54:10 +0200 Message-ID: <20120329075410.GC2098@minipsycho> References: <20120329074443.GB2098@minipsycho> <20120329.034957.655153582806618222.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, bhutchings@solarflare.com, shemminger@vyatta.com To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37601 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751133Ab2C2HyP (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Mar 2012 03:54:15 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120329.034957.655153582806618222.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 09:49:57AM CEST, davem@davemloft.net wrote: >From: Jiri Pirko >Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:44:43 +0200 > >> Here are proposed things to be done: >> 1) introduce in-kernel api for creating sk-unattached filters (I have >> the patch cooked up already) >> >> 2) extend current BPF machine to allow XOR operation. Not sure if this >> is doable or what the best of doing this is. >> >> 3) add possibility to pass some data to the machine via >> pre-filling "Scratch Memory Store". I think this can be done easily >> moving "u32 mem[BPF_MEMWORDS];" to bpf_func caller and pass it as the >> second function parameter. That should not break anything. >> >> Then the computed hash can be either stored into Scratch memory or returned >> directly (where ordinary sk filters return len). >> >> Does this seems reasonable? Thoughts, comments? > >No fundamental objections, but we have all of these JITs now to >update when adding new operations or semantics, so be careful. Yep, I'm aware. I must admit that the JIT code scares me a litte :(