Edward Cree writes:
> On 17/06/2019 21:40, Jiong Wang wrote:
>> Now if we don't split patch when patch an insn inside patch, instead, if we
>> replace the patched insn using what you suggested, then the logic looks to
>> me becomes even more complex, something like
>>
>>for (idx = 0; idx < i
On 17/06/2019 21:40, Jiong Wang wrote:
> Now if we don't split patch when patch an insn inside patch, instead, if we
> replace the patched insn using what you suggested, then the logic looks to
> me becomes even more complex, something like
>
>for (idx = 0; idx < insn_cnt; idx++) {
> if (i
Alexei Starovoitov writes:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 1:40 PM Jiong Wang wrote:
>>
>> After digest Alexei and Andrii's reply, I still don't see the need to turn
>> branch target into list, and I am not sure whether pool based list sound
>> good? it saves size, resize pool doesn't invalid allocat
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 1:40 PM Jiong Wang wrote:
>
> After digest Alexei and Andrii's reply, I still don't see the need to turn
> branch target into list, and I am not sure whether pool based list sound
> good? it saves size, resize pool doesn't invalid allocated node (the offset
> doesn't change
Edward Cree writes:
> On 17/06/2019 20:59, Jiong Wang wrote:
>> Edward Cree writes:
>>
>>> On 14/06/2019 16:13, Jiong Wang wrote:
Just an update and keep people posted.
Working on linked list based approach, the implementation looks like the
following, mostly a combine of dis
On 17/06/2019 20:59, Jiong Wang wrote:
> Edward Cree writes:
>
>> On 14/06/2019 16:13, Jiong Wang wrote:
>>> Just an update and keep people posted.
>>>
>>> Working on linked list based approach, the implementation looks like the
>>> following, mostly a combine of discussions happened and Naveen's p
Edward Cree writes:
> On 14/06/2019 16:13, Jiong Wang wrote:
>> Just an update and keep people posted.
>>
>> Working on linked list based approach, the implementation looks like the
>> following, mostly a combine of discussions happened and Naveen's patch,
>> please feel free to comment.
>>
>>
On 14/06/2019 16:13, Jiong Wang wrote:
> Just an update and keep people posted.
>
> Working on linked list based approach, the implementation looks like the
> following, mostly a combine of discussions happened and Naveen's patch,
> please feel free to comment.
>
> - Use the reserved opcode 0xf0
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 10:06 AM Alexei Starovoitov
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 8:13 AM Jiong Wang wrote:
> >
> >
> > Alexei Starovoitov writes:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:25 AM Jiong Wang
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Jiong Wang writes:
> > >>
> > >> > Alexei Starovoitov wr
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 8:13 AM Jiong Wang wrote:
>
>
> Alexei Starovoitov writes:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:25 AM Jiong Wang wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Jiong Wang writes:
> >>
> >> > Alexei Starovoitov writes:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 4:32 AM Naveen N. Rao
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>>
Alexei Starovoitov writes:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:25 AM Jiong Wang wrote:
>>
>>
>> Jiong Wang writes:
>>
>> > Alexei Starovoitov writes:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 4:32 AM Naveen N. Rao
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Currently, for constant blinding, we re-allocate the bpf program to
Hi "Naveen,
I love your patch! Perhaps something to improve:
[auto build test WARNING on bpf-next/master]
[also build test WARNING on v5.2-rc4 next-20190613]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
improve the system]
url:
https://github.com/0day-ci/li
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:25 AM Jiong Wang wrote:
>
>
> Jiong Wang writes:
>
> > Alexei Starovoitov writes:
> >
> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 4:32 AM Naveen N. Rao
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Currently, for constant blinding, we re-allocate the bpf program to
> >>> account for its new size and adjust
Jiong Wang writes:
> Alexei Starovoitov writes:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 4:32 AM Naveen N. Rao
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Currently, for constant blinding, we re-allocate the bpf program to
>>> account for its new size and adjust all branches to accommodate the
>>> same, for each BPF instruction tha
Alexei Starovoitov writes:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 4:32 AM Naveen N. Rao
> wrote:
>>
>> Currently, for constant blinding, we re-allocate the bpf program to
>> account for its new size and adjust all branches to accommodate the
>> same, for each BPF instruction that needs constant blinding. Th
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 4:32 AM Naveen N. Rao
wrote:
>
> Currently, for constant blinding, we re-allocate the bpf program to
> account for its new size and adjust all branches to accommodate the
> same, for each BPF instruction that needs constant blinding. This is
> inefficient and can lead to so
Currently, for constant blinding, we re-allocate the bpf program to
account for its new size and adjust all branches to accommodate the
same, for each BPF instruction that needs constant blinding. This is
inefficient and can lead to soft lockup with sufficiently large
programs, such as the new veri
17 matches
Mail list logo
