On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 15:05:21 -0800
Rob Wing wrote:
> Doesn't NetBSD have Lua in the kernel...anyone have any experience
> with it?
Lua is not suitable for the discussed problem domains, don't listen to
those who did not read material and did not understand short
descriptions.
> re BPF64:
>
> l
On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 15:58:25 +0100
David Chisnall wrote:
> On 10 Sep 2024, at 14:44, Vadim Goncharov
> wrote:
> >
> > I am not an experience assembler user and don't understand how
> > Spectre works - that's why I've written RFC letter even before spec
> > finished - but isn't that (Spectre) an
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> A) How powerful do you want the downloaded bytecode to be ?
...
> There are basically two possible answers to A.
>
> Either the downloaded code is "real", which means it can include
> loops, function calls etc. or it is a "toy" which relies on
> Brinch-Hansen's "all arro
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=281391
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|b...@freebsd.org|n...@freebsd.org
--
You are receiv
On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 14:41:20 +
"Gavin D. Howard" wrote:
> Hello,
>
> New user here, not a contributor.
>
> > Ensuring kernel stability? Just don't allow arbitrary pointers,
> > like original BPF. Guaranteed termination time? It's possible if
> > you place some restrictions. For example, don
On 10 Sep 2024, at 14:44, Vadim Goncharov wrote:
>
> I am not an experience assembler user and don't understand how Spectre
> works - that's why I've written RFC letter even before spec finished - but
> isn't that (Spectre) an x86-specific thing? BPF64 has more registers
> and primarily target RI
On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 13:59:02 +0100
David Chisnall wrote:
> On 10 Sep 2024, at 12:45, Vadim Goncharov
> wrote:
> >
> > It's easy for your Lua code (or whatever) code to hang kernel by
> > infinite loop. Or crash it by access on arbitrary pointer. That's
> > why original BPF has no backward jumps
On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 13:59:02 +0100
David Chisnall wrote:
> On 10 Sep 2024, at 12:45, Vadim Goncharov
> wrote:
> >
> > It's easy for your Lua code (or whatever) code to hang kernel by
> > infinite loop. Or crash it by access on arbitrary pointer. That's
> > why original BPF has no backward jumps
On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 12:24:07 +
"Poul-Henning Kamp" wrote:
>
> Vadim Goncharov writes:
>
> > It's easy for your Lua code (or whatever) code to hang kernel by
> > infinite loop. Or crash it by access on arbitrary pointer.
>
> Lua has pointers now ?
It's implementation has. Do you
On 10 Sep 2024, at 12:45, Vadim Goncharov wrote:
>
> It's easy for your Lua code (or whatever) code to hang kernel by
> infinite loop. Or crash it by access on arbitrary pointer. That's why
> original BPF has no backward jumps and memory access, and eBPF's
> nightmare verifier walks all code path
On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 06:38:50 +
"Poul-Henning Kamp" wrote:
>
> Vadim Goncharov writes:
>
> > I've put a sketch of design to https://github.com/nuclight/bpf64
> > with files:
>
> Counter proposal:
>
> 1. Define the Lua execution environment in the kernel.
>
> 2. Add syscall to su
11 matches
Mail list logo
