chris...@astron.com (Christos Zoulas) wrote: > >> <...> > >> > >> BPF_STMT(BPF_MISC+BPF_COP, 0), /* A <- funcs[0](...) */ > >> > >> typedef uint32_t(*bpf_copfunc_t)(struct mbuf *pkt, > >> uint32_t A, uint32_t *M); > >> > >> int bpf_set_cop(bpf_ctx_t *c, bpf_copfunc_t funcs[], size_t n); > >> > >> <...> > > Well, aside from the consideration that somehow bpf needs to understand > what memory locations the coproc function alters (so that it considers > them initialized), the bigger question is how does the code for those > functions gets loaded and unloaded, and which bpf programs have access to > those functions.
This is not really for /dev/bpf. The user would be a kernel subsystem, which would call bpf_filter(9) on a packet (or whatever is stored in the mbuf) itself. As it would provide/control both the byte-code and the coprocessor functions, the calling convention (e.g. callee/caller words in the memory store) would be consistent. Hence the need to adjust bpf_filter() routine to accept struct bpf_ctx which would contain the coprocessor routines. While doing that, I would also like to add support for initialising the memory store words to a custom values. > > christos > -- Mindaugas _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
