lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH net-next v3 8/9] net: filter: rework/optimize internal BPF interpreter's instruction set
From
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 12:23 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> From: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@redhat.com>
> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 22:06:09 +0100
>
>> - Adds swab insns for 32/64-bit
>
> I don't like this.
>
> You don't want a swab instruction, you want "endian X to endian Y". Just
> like we have "cpu_to_le32()", "le32_to_cpu()" et al. in the kernel.
>
> That way the user can be completely oblivious as to the endianness of
> the cpu it's running on.

Agreed.
If we want to expose ebpf instruction set to the userspace as-is then
it completely makes sense.

The reason we picked swab style is two fold:
1. swab32/64 maps as-is to native cpu instructions during jit.
2. assumption was that new_socket_filters/tracing_filters/ovs_filters
will be written in C and will use standard macro ntohl() that
will be expanded to __builtin_swap or nop by gcc/llvm,
so users don't need to worry about underlying endianness while
writing filters in C.

> So if you ask for a "to little endian" swab, if the chip is
> little-endian then no code needs to be emitted at all, it's a nop.
>
> There is zero reason for the BPF program emitted by userspace to be
> dependant upon the cpu endianness.

Agree.
with cpu_to_le and cpu_to_be instructions the programs written in C
and written directly in ebpf won't need to worry about endianness.
Best of both.

We'll fix and resend.

Thanks
Alexei


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-03-27 22:01    [W:0.047 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site