Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1716848
| From | Edward Cree <ecree@solarflare.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 net-next] bpf/verifier: track liveness for pruning |
| Date | 2017-08-21 22:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uh1uH-Ac-41@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <uePQZ-5sj-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <ufQhX-4UA-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <ufQhX-4UA-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 18/08/17 15:16, Edward Cree wrote: > On 18/08/17 04:21, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >> It seems you're trying to sort-of do per-fake-basic block liveness >> analysis, but our state_list_marks are not correct if we go with >> canonical basic block definition, since we mark the jump insn and >> not insn after the branch and not every basic block boundary is >> properly detected. > I think the reason this works is that jump insns can't do writes. > [snip] > the sl->state will never have any write marks and it'll all just work. > But I should really test that! I tested this, and found that, no, sl->state can have write marks, and the algorithm will get the wrong answer in that case. So I've got a patch to make the first iteration ignore write marks, as part of a series which I will post shortly. When I do so, please re-do your tests with adding state_list_marks in strange and exciting places; it should work wherever you put them. Like you say, it "magically doesn't depend on proper basic block boundaries", and that's because really pruning is just a kind of checkpointing that just happens to be most effective when done just after a jump (pop_stack). Can I have a SOB for your "grr" test program, so I can include it in the series? -Ed
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH v3 net-next] bpf/verifier: track liveness for pruning Edward Cree <ecree@solarflare.com> - 2017-08-15 21:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v3 net-next] bpf/verifier: track liveness for pruning Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> - 2017-08-16 00:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH v3 net-next] bpf/verifier: track liveness for pruning David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> - 2017-08-16 01:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v3 net-next] bpf/verifier: track liveness for pruning Edward Cree <ecree@solarflare.com> - 2017-08-18 16:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH v3 net-next] bpf/verifier: track liveness for pruning Edward Cree <ecree@solarflare.com> - 2017-08-21 20:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v3 net-next] bpf/verifier: track liveness for pruning Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> - 2017-08-21 22:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v3 net-next] bpf/verifier: track liveness for pruning Edward Cree <ecree@solarflare.com> - 2017-08-21 22:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v3 net-next] bpf/verifier: track liveness for pruning Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> - 2017-08-21 23:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v3 net-next] bpf/verifier: track liveness for pruning Edward Cree <ecree@solarflare.com> - 2017-08-21 22:30 +0200
csiph-web