From: Alexei Starovoitov
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 18:58:14 -0700
> So I think we can debate backward jumps later when they actually
> will be up for review.
Then don't mention it in the commit message.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a
From: Alexei Starovoitov a...@plumgrid.com
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 18:58:14 -0700
So I think we can debate backward jumps later when they actually
will be up for review.
Then don't mention it in the commit message.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:46 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: "H. Peter Anvin"
> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 17:24:27 -0700
>
>> If you allow loops, it greatly increases the expressibility of the
>> language, but we would really need another control to limit CPU usage.
>
> We don't want super
From: "H. Peter Anvin"
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 17:24:27 -0700
> If you allow loops, it greatly increases the expressibility of the
> language, but we would really need another control to limit CPU usage.
We don't want super expressibility.
We want an extremely simple, trivial to validate,
On 03/25/2014 05:17 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Daniel Borkmann
> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 13:10:56 +0100
>
>> - Conditional jt/jf targets replaced with jt/fall-through,
>> and forward/backward jumps now possible as well
>
> Ummm... does anyone even remember why backwards jumps were not
From: Daniel Borkmann
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 13:10:56 +0100
> - Conditional jt/jf targets replaced with jt/fall-through,
> and forward/backward jumps now possible as well
Ummm... does anyone even remember why backwards jumps were not allowed
in the original BPF?
It's to guarentee forward
From: Alexei Starovoitov
This patch replaces/reworks the kernel-internal BPF interpreter with
an optimized BPF instruction set format that is modelled closer to
mimic native instruction sets and is designed to be JITed with one to
one mapping. Thus, the new interpreter is noticeably faster than
From: Alexei Starovoitov a...@plumgrid.com
This patch replaces/reworks the kernel-internal BPF interpreter with
an optimized BPF instruction set format that is modelled closer to
mimic native instruction sets and is designed to be JITed with one to
one mapping. Thus, the new interpreter is
From: Daniel Borkmann dbork...@redhat.com
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 13:10:56 +0100
- Conditional jt/jf targets replaced with jt/fall-through,
and forward/backward jumps now possible as well
Ummm... does anyone even remember why backwards jumps were not allowed
in the original BPF?
It's to
On 03/25/2014 05:17 PM, David Miller wrote:
From: Daniel Borkmann dbork...@redhat.com
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 13:10:56 +0100
- Conditional jt/jf targets replaced with jt/fall-through,
and forward/backward jumps now possible as well
Ummm... does anyone even remember why backwards
From: H. Peter Anvin h...@linux.intel.com
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 17:24:27 -0700
If you allow loops, it greatly increases the expressibility of the
language, but we would really need another control to limit CPU usage.
We don't want super expressibility.
We want an extremely simple, trivial to
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:46 PM, David Miller da...@davemloft.net wrote:
From: H. Peter Anvin h...@linux.intel.com
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 17:24:27 -0700
If you allow loops, it greatly increases the expressibility of the
language, but we would really need another control to limit CPU usage.
12 matches
Mail list logo
