Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 08/14] bpf: add eBPF verifier

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >>> + reg = regs + BPF_REG_1; /* 1st arg to a function */ >>> + reg->ptr = PTR_TO_CTX; >> Wait, doesn't this depend on doing "BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_CTX, >> BPF_REG_ARG1)" (the bpf-to-ebpf prologue), which is only enforced on >>

Re: [PATCH v6 net-next 1/4] net: flow_dissector: avoid multiple calls in eBPF

On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 1:14 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote: >> This is a high-level decision, more than a technical one. Do we want >> to freeze classic BPF development in linux, even before we have a >> complete eBPF replacement, and zero eBPF tool (libpcap) support? > > > In my opinion, I don't thin

Re: [PATCH v6 net-next 1/4] net: flow_dissector: avoid multiple calls in eBPF

I'll try to revive the discussion for this patch, in case I can convince you about its implementation. I rebased it to the latest HEAD, and I'm ready to re-submit. On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 1:51 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 06/03/2014 11:12 PM, Chema Gonzalez wrote: > ... &g

Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 0/2] split BPF out of core networking

[Sorry for the delay in the answer. Been mired somewhere else.] On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Chema Gonzalez wrote: >> First of all, and just to join the crowd, kernel/bpf/ FTW. >> >> Now, I have some sugges

Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 0/2] split BPF out of core networking

First of all, and just to join the crowd, kernel/bpf/ FTW. Now, I have some suggestions about eBPF. IMO classic BPF is an ISA oriented to filter (meaning returning a single integer that states how many bytes of the packet must be captured) packets (e.g. consider the 6 load modes, where 3 provide a

Re: [PATCH v6 net-next 1/4] net: flow_dissector: avoid multiple calls in eBPF

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 1:33 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote: >> On 06/02/2014 06:48 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >>> >>> imo there are pros and cons in Daniel's and Chema's proposals >>> for classic BPF extensions. >>> I like Chema's a bit mo

[tip:irq/core] genirq: procfs: Make smp_affinity values go+r

Commit-ID: bab5c790cc64adb1ede54b4077444375108ac8da Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/bab5c790cc64adb1ede54b4077444375108ac8da Author: Chema Gonzalez AuthorDate: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 19:50:55 -0700 Committer: Thomas Gleixner CommitDate: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 12:34:29 +0100 genirq: procfs: Make

[PATCH] procfs: make smp_affinity values go+r

Includes: - /proc/irq/default_smp_affinity - /proc/irq/*/affinity_hint - /proc/irq/*/smp_affinity - /proc/irq/*/smp_affinity_list Users can distill the same information by reading /proc/interrupts. Signed-off-by: Chema Gonzalez --- kernel/irq/proc.c | 8 1 file changed, 4 insertions

Re: [PATCH] procfs: make smp_affinity values 0644

0444 maybe? -Chema On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 19:05 -0700, Chema Gonzalez wrote: >> Includes: >> - /proc/irq/default_smp_affinity >> - /proc/irq/*/smp_affinity >> - /proc/irq/*/smp_affinity_list >> >> Us

[PATCH] procfs: make smp_affinity values 0644

Includes: - /proc/irq/default_smp_affinity - /proc/irq/*/smp_affinity - /proc/irq/*/smp_affinity_list Users can distill the same information by reading /proc/interrupts. Signed-off-by: Chema Gonzalez --- kernel/irq/proc.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git