On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 1:05 AM, Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 06/28/2014 02:06 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>
>> Safety of eBPF programs is statically determined by the verifier, which
>> detects:
>> - loops
>> - out of range jumps
>> - unreachable instructions
>> - invalid instructions
>> - uninitialized register access
>> - uninitialized stack access
>> - misaligned stack access
>> - out of range stack access
>> - invalid calling convention
>
> ...
>
>> More details in Documentation/networking/filter.txt
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>
> ...
>>
>> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 1431
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
> Looking at classic BPF verifier which checks safety of BPF
> user space programs, it's roughly 200 loc. :-/
I'm not sure what's your point comparing apples to oranges.
For the record 1431 lines include ~200 lines worth of comments
and 200 lines of verbose prints. Without them rejected eBPF
program is black box. Users need a way to understand why
verifier rejected it.
>
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> new file mode 100644
>
> ...
>
>> +#define _(OP) ({ int ret = OP; if (ret < 0) return ret; })
>
> ...
>>
>> + _(get_map_info(env, map_id, &map));
>
> ...
>>
>> + _(size = bpf_size_to_bytes(bpf_size));
>
>
> Nit: such macros should be removed, please.
It may surely look unconventional, but alternative is to replace
every usage of _ macro with:
err = …
if (err)
return err;
and since this macro is used 38 times, it will add ~120 unnecessary
lines that will only make code much harder to follow.
I tried not using macro and results were not pleasing.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
