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
16 matches
Mail list logo
