Jiong Wang writes:
>> > if you can craft a test that shows patch_insn issue before your set,
>> > then it's ok to hack bpf_fill_scale1 to use alu64.
>>
>> As described above, does the test_verifier 732 + jit blinding looks
>> convincing?
>>
>> > I would also prefer to go with option 2 (new zext
> > if you can craft a test that shows patch_insn issue before your set,
> > then it's ok to hack bpf_fill_scale1 to use alu64.
>
> As described above, does the test_verifier 732 + jit blinding looks
> convincing?
>
> > I would also prefer to go with option 2 (new zext insn) for JITs.
>
> Got it.
On 27/04/2019 04:11, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> instead of converting all insns into lists of 1 before all patching
> it can be done on demand:
> convert from insn to list only when patching is needed.
Makes sense.
> Patched insn becomes a pointer to a block of new insns.
> We have reserved opcode
> On 27 Apr 2019, at 04:05, Alexei Starovoitov
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 02:06:33PM +0100, Jiong Wang wrote:
>>
>>> Note that bpf_patch_insn_single() is calling bpf_adj_branches() twice too.
>>> And dead_code + convert_ctx + fixup_bpf_calls are calling
>>> bpf_patch_insn_single(
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 03:50:33PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 26/04/2019 14:06, Jiong Wang wrote:
> > Alexei Starovoitov writes:
> >> Note that bpf_patch_insn_single() is calling bpf_adj_branches() twice too.
> >> And dead_code + convert_ctx + fixup_bpf_calls are calling
> >> bpf_patch_insn_sin
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 02:06:33PM +0100, Jiong Wang wrote:
>
> Alexei Starovoitov writes:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 08:25:44AM +0100, Jiong Wang wrote:
> >>
> >> Alexei Starovoitov writes:
> >>
> >> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 12:07:06AM +0100, Jiong Wang wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Alexei Staro
On 26/04/2019 14:06, Jiong Wang wrote:
> Alexei Starovoitov writes:
>> Note that bpf_patch_insn_single() is calling bpf_adj_branches() twice too.
>> And dead_code + convert_ctx + fixup_bpf_calls are calling
>> bpf_patch_insn_single() a lot.
>> How about before dead_code pass we convert the program
Alexei Starovoitov writes:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 08:25:44AM +0100, Jiong Wang wrote:
>>
>> Alexei Starovoitov writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 12:07:06AM +0100, Jiong Wang wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Alexei Starovoitov writes:
>> >>
>> >> > Add two tests to check that sequence of 1024 jump
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 08:25:44AM +0100, Jiong Wang wrote:
>
> Alexei Starovoitov writes:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 12:07:06AM +0100, Jiong Wang wrote:
> >>
> >> Alexei Starovoitov writes:
> >>
> >> > Add two tests to check that sequence of 1024 jumps is verifiable.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-of
> On 25 Apr 2019, at 08:25, Jiong Wang wrote:
>
>
> Alexei Starovoitov writes:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 12:07:06AM +0100, Jiong Wang wrote:
>>>
>>> Alexei Starovoitov writes:
>>>
Add two tests to check that sequence of 1024 jumps is verifiable.
Signed-off-by: Alexei Star
Alexei Starovoitov writes:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 12:07:06AM +0100, Jiong Wang wrote:
>>
>> Alexei Starovoitov writes:
>>
>> > Add two tests to check that sequence of 1024 jumps is verifiable.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov
>> > ---
>> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verif
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 12:07:06AM +0100, Jiong Wang wrote:
>
> Alexei Starovoitov writes:
>
> > Add two tests to check that sequence of 1024 jumps is verifiable.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov
> > ---
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 70
> > to
Alexei Starovoitov writes:
> Add two tests to check that sequence of 1024 jumps is verifiable.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 70
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/scale.c | 18 +
I am rebasing 32-bit o
On 04/12/2019 11:41 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> Add two tests to check that sequence of 1024 jumps is verifiable.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov
Applied, thanks!
On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 4:32 PM Alexei Starovoitov
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 04:24:51PM -0700, Song Liu wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 2:41 PM Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > >
> > > Add two tests to check that sequence of 1024 jumps is verifiable.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Alexei Sta
On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 04:24:51PM -0700, Song Liu wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 2:41 PM Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >
> > Add two tests to check that sequence of 1024 jumps is verifiable.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov
>
> Acked-by: Song Liu
>
> Shall we add a test that go beyon
On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 2:41 PM Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>
> Add two tests to check that sequence of 1024 jumps is verifiable.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov
Acked-by: Song Liu
Shall we add a test that go beyond the 1M limit?
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 70
Add two tests to check that sequence of 1024 jumps is verifiable.
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 70
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/scale.c | 18 +
2 files changed, 88 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 tools/tes
18 matches
Mail list logo
