Re: [PATCH bpf-next 11/11] bpf: Fall back to nospec for spec path verification

2025-04-03 Thread Alexei Starovoitov
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 2:06 AM Luis Gerhorst wrote: > > Thank you very much for having a look. Let me know whether the above > resolves your concern. > > In any case, should I separate patches 1-3 into another series? Sorry for the delay. lsfmm was followed by the busy merge window. Please reba

Re: [PATCH bpf-next 11/11] bpf: Fall back to nospec for spec path verification

2025-03-19 Thread Luis Gerhorst
Alexei Starovoitov writes: > On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 10:57 AM Luis Gerhorst wrote: >> With increased limits this allows applying mitigations to large BPF >> progs such as the Parca Continuous Profiler's prog. However, this >> requires a jump-seq limit of 256k. In any case, the same principle >>

Re: [PATCH bpf-next 11/11] bpf: Fall back to nospec for spec path verification

2025-03-18 Thread Alexei Starovoitov
On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 10:57 AM Luis Gerhorst wrote: > > This trades verification complexity for runtime overheads due to the > nospec inserted because of the EINVAL. > > With increased limits this allows applying mitigations to large BPF > progs such as the Parca Continuous Profiler's prog. Howe