On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 10:26:10AM -0700, Tom Herbert wrote: > > I would only suggest to drop support for classic BPF. > > It's usable to return frame length of http2, but it won't be > > able to parse protocols where fields are little endian. > > Also it doesn't scale, since new cBPF program would be created > > for every KCM socket, whereas with eBPF we can use single program > > for all KCM sockets via single FD. > > > Hi Alexei, > > That makes sense, but I think there may be some use cases where we'd > like lightweight methods to program filters. Writing C code for BPF is > extremely cool, but integrating LLVM/Clang into our development > environment may be a pain. We also might want to create a different > program for every socket anyway (like from some template with > parameterization). An eBPF assembler and jit support could be useful > (looks like there might be some work started on both of these > already).
coding eBPF with macros as sock_example.c, test_verifier.c, test_bpf.c do should be enough to start. User space assembler to convert text to eBPF binary obviously would be even better. But lack of tiny and standalone assembler today shouldn't be the reason to include classic as permenent kernel ABI. Not sure what you mean by 'jit support'. There is in-kernel jit and there is jit mode of llvm where bpf can be taken from memory without going to elf file. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
