Hi David,
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:02 PM, David Miller wrote:
>
> You posted this 4 times. :-(
>
> I hope I applied the right one.
All 4 of these are the same patch. I mistakenly sent it 4 times. My
apologies for that.
>
> Go check net-next and please send me any necessary fix up patches.
I ju
Please ignore this mail. Sent it by mistake.
Sent the correct patch later on.
Please ignore this mail. Sent it by mistake.
Russell, David, Alexei, Daniel and Kees. Please check this patch and
lets finish it.
Thanks.
space to emulate 64 bit eBPF ISA on 32 bit
ARM because of deficiency of general purpose registers on ARM. Currently,
only LITTLE ENDIAN machines are supported in this eBPF JIT Compiler.
Tested on ARMv7 with QEMU by me (Shubham Bansal).
Testing results on ARMv7:
1) test_bpf: Summary: 341 PASSED, 0
space to emulate 64 bit eBPF ISA on 32 bit
ARM because of deficiency of general purpose registers on ARM. Currently,
only LITTLE ENDIAN machines are supported in this eBPF JIT Compiler.
Tested on ARMv7 with QEMU by me (Shubham Bansal).
Testing results on ARMv7:
1) test_bpf: Summary: 341 PASSED, 0
space to emulate 64 bit eBPF ISA on 32 bit
ARM because of deficiency of general purpose registers on ARM. Currently,
only LITTLE ENDIAN machines are supported in this eBPF JIT Compiler.
Tested on ARMv7 with QEMU by me (Shubham Bansal).
Testing results on ARMv7:
1) test_bpf: Summary: 341 PASSED, 0
space to emulate 64 bit eBPF ISA on 32 bit
ARM because of deficiency of general purpose registers on ARM. Currently,
only LITTLE ENDIAN machines are supported in this eBPF JIT Compiler.
Tested on ARMv7 with QEMU by me (Shubham Bansal).
Testing results on ARMv7:
1) test_bpf: Summary: 341 PASSED, 0
> This is a WARN, printk is a pig.
So, its not a bug?
> With the below #ifdef __LITTLE_ENDIAN spanning the entire
> bpf_int_jit_compile(), a user can then enable and compile
> eBPF JIT for big endian, even set the bpf_jit_enable to 1
> to turn it on, but it won't JIT anything, which is contrary
> to the expectation.
>
> This should rather be a hard de
Hi all,
While fuzzing with syzkaller inside Qemu I've stumbled on the
following warning which is reproducible with
==
// autogenerated by syzkaller (http://github.com/google/syzkaller)
#define _GNU_SOURCE
#include
#include
#include
#includ
> Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov
David, Russell, Kees and Daniel, Anything from your side? Is this
patch ready to land in net-next?
total map id found by get_next_id 0 nsec
test_pkt_md_access:PASS: 30459 nsec<--- Here is the difference.
Summary: 30 PASSED, 0 FAILED
On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 2:58 AM, Shubham Bansal
wrote:
> Here are numbers.
>
> Without any JIT enabled
>
> test_pkt_access:PASS:ipv4 1823 n
Here are numbers.
Without any JIT enabled
test_pkt_access:PASS:ipv4 1823 nsec
test_pkt_access:PASS:ipv6 1743 nsec
test_xdp:PASS:ipv4 769022 nsec
test_xdp:PASS:ipv6 15408 nsec
test_l4lb:PASS:ipv4 12441 nsec
test_l4lb:PASS:ipv6 18131 nsec
test_tcp_estats:PASS: 0 nsec
test_bpf_obj_id:PASS:get-fd-by-
One more thing I forgot to mention.
I think this is the first implementation of eBPF JIT on any 32 bit
arch, correct me if I am wrong. I think we can use this as a POC to
implement eBPF on other 32 bit arch as well like x86, depends on its
need I guess.
> impressive work.
> Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov
Thanks :)
I can't take all the credit. It was Daniel and Kees who helped me a lot.
I would have given up a long time ago without them.
>
> Any performance numbers with vs without JIT ?
Here is the mail from Kees on v1 of the patch.
For what it'
htab inlining more robust wrt assumptions"
with message ID:
03f4e86a029058d0f674fd9bf288e55a5ec07df3.1503104831.git.dan...@iogearbox.net
Tested on ARMv7 with QEMU by me (Shubham Bansal).
Testing results on ARMv7:
1) test_bpf: Summary: 341 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [312/333 JIT'ed]
2) test_tag: OK
Okay Kees. I will take a look at it.
Best,
Shubham Bansal
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 8:49 PM, Shubham Bansal
> wrote:
>> Hi Kees,
>>
>> Problem is my ARM machine don't have clang and iproute2 which is
>> keeping
Hi Kees,
Problem is my ARM machine don't have clang and iproute2 which is
keeping me from testing the bpf tail calls.
You should do the following to test it,.
1. tools/testing/selftests/bpf/
2. make
3. sudo ./test_progs
And, before testing, you have to do "make headers_install".
These tests are
Hi Russell,Daniel and Kees,
I am attaching the latest patch with this mail. It included support
for BPF_CALL | BPF_JMP tested with and without constant blinding on
ARMv7 machine.
Due to the limitation on my machine I can't test the tail call. It
would be a great help if any of you could help me wi
then do let me know what more is
required?
Best,
Shubham Bansal
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 10:02 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 06/21/2017 04:26 PM, Shubham Bansal wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> So ultimately, we call helper_function which takes u64 as arguments
>> only. I know
Hi Daniel,
>
> So my question would be, why can't the JIT imitate something
> similar to what we do in the interpreter as well? So looking
> at the disasm of what gcc compiles for the interpreter when it's
> doing the above call could help as well in going forward. Not
> sure if that answers your
Hi Daniel,
>
> Sorry, had a travel over the weekend, so didn't read it in time.
>
> What is the issue with imitating in JIT what the interpreter is
> doing as a starting point? That should be generic enough to handle
> any case.
>
> Otherwise you'd need some sort of reverse mapping since verifier
Hi Daniel,
>
> Not all of the helpers have 4 or less byte arguments only, there are a
> few with 8 byte arguments, so making that general assumption wouldn't
> work. I guess what could be done is that helpers have a flag in struct
> bpf_func_proto which indicates for JITs that all args are 4 byte
Hi Daniel, Kees, David, Russel,
>> Any plans to implement above especially BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL in near future?
>> Reason why I'm asking is that i) currently the arm32 cBPF JIT implements
>> all of the cBPF extensions (except SKF_AD_RANDOM and SKF_AD_VLAN_TPID).
>> Some of the programs that were JIT
Hi Russel,
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 12:21:03PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> On 05/30/2017 09:19 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> >On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Shubham Bansal
>> > wrote:
>> >>+
t;> Implementation is using scratch space to emulate 64 bit eBPF ISA on 32
>>> bit
>>> ARM because of deficiency of general purpose registers on ARM. Currently,
>>> only LITTLE ENDIAN machines are supported in this eBPF JIT Compiler.
>>>
>>> Tested on
Hi Russell, Alexei, David, Daniel, kees,
Any update on this patch moving forward?
Best,
Shubham Bansal
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> Forwarding this to net-dev and eBPF folks, who weren't on CC...
>
> -Kees
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Shu
x27;t need it. I guess, it was a wasted
effort.
I don't have anything more to offer in regarding to this patch.
Thank you.
Best,
Shubham Bansal
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 10:27 PM, Shubham Bansal
wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Did you get the time to test the code with CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER? It
Hi Andrew,
Did you get the time to test the code with CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER? It
would be great if you could check if it works on ARMv5 so that Russell
can look at the patch.
Thanks.
Best,
Shubham Bansal
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 5:06 AM, Shubham Bansal
wrote:
> Just to add. It a very very sm
Just to add. It a very very small part which deal with
CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER just one move instruction.
Best,
Shubham Bansal
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 5:04 AM, Shubham Bansal
wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Oh. I didn't knew. Can you test it now and confirm it? I think it will
> work
Hi Andrew,
Oh. I didn't knew. Can you test it now and confirm it? I think it will
work and wouldn't take much of the time.
Please.
Best,
Shubham Bansal
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> Tested on ARMv7 with QEMU by me (Shubham Bansal).
>> Tested o
Implementation is using scratch space to emulate 64 bit eBPF ISA on 32 bit
ARM because of deficiency of general purpose registers on ARM. Currently,
only LITTLE ENDIAN machines are supported in this eBPF JIT Compiler.
Tested on ARMv7 with QEMU by me (Shubham Bansal).
Tested on ARMv5 by Andrew Lunn (and
-ca9.dtb -kernel
./linux/arch/arm/boot/zImage -append "root=/dev/mmcblk0
console=ttyAMA0" -sd ./a9rootfs.ext3 --nographic
Which machine I should use for ARMv6 in QEMU. Which dtb file I should
use for ? All these questions I have. If anybody knows please let me
know.
Best,
Shubham Bansa
Hi Andrew,
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:18 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:05:23AM +0530, Shubham Bansal wrote:
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> My Apologies.
>>
>> I will remove the #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_LITTLE_ENDIAN. Do you have the
>> ARMv6 machine
Hi Andrew,
My Apologies.
I will remove the #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_LITTLE_ENDIAN. Do you have the
ARMv6 machine you can test it on?
-Shubham
Hi Andrew,
Did you get the chance to test the patch?
Best,
Shubham Bansal
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:01 AM, Shubham Bansal
wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> I am attaching the latest patch which should work on ARMv5 , ARMv6 and ARMv7.
>
> Please test on your machines. Apologies for the l
Hi Andrew,
I am attaching the latest patch which should work on ARMv5 , ARMv6 and ARMv7.
Please test on your machines. Apologies for the last patch. This patch
should work though.
Best,
Shubham Bansal
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 4:55 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> root@qnap:~# test_bpf: #0 TAX jite
Hi Andrew,
I am attaching the additional patch to make it work for ARMv5 as well.
Let me know if you find any issues with this.
Please apply 0002-Editted-for-ARMv5-compilation.patch after applying
the first patch.
Best,
Shubham Bansal
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 2:16 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>
Hi Andrew,
I think I forgot to compile it for ARMv5. Let me send the patch again
in few minutes.
I appreciate the help.
Best,
Shubham Bansal
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 2:16 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:03:53AM +0530, Shubham Bansal wrote:
>> The JIT compiler emi
Hi Russell,
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:30 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:03:53AM +0530, Shubham Bansal wrote:
>> The JIT compiler emits ARM 32 bit instructions. Currently, It supports
>> eBPF only. Classic BPF is supported because
_ALU64 | BPF_DIV | BPF_K
BPF_ALU64 | BPF_DIV | BPF_X
BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_K
BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_X
BPF_STX | BPF_XADD | BPF_W
BPF_STX | BPF_XADD | BPF_DW
BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL
Signed-off-by: Shubham Bansal
---
arch/arm
Fixed a coding style issue. Issue reported by checkpatch.pl.
Signed-off-by: Shubham Bansal
---
drivers/staging/android/ion/ion.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/android/ion/ion.c
b/drivers/staging/android/ion/ion.c
index 8536567..2217ccb
Fixed a coding style issue. Issue reported by checkpatch.pl.
Signed-off-by: Shubham Bansal
---
drivers/staging/android/ion/ion.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/android/ion/ion.c
b/drivers/staging/android/ion/ion.c
index 8536567..2217ccb
44 matches
Mail list logo
