On 06/23/2014 11:57 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Chema Gonzalez <ch...@google.com> wrote:
...
- nop: I'd like to have a nop. Do I know why? Nope.
nope. Let's not add unnecessary instructions.
A valid nop is a useful instruction: padding, filling up arrays of
sock_filter_int correctly (as in lib/test_bpf.c, where we're currently
using a "ld #0", which loads zero to register A), and other use cases
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOP ).
especially I don't like to add 'nop' instruction.
code==0 to mean 'ld #0' is one of classic BPF ugliness.
I think it was probably unintended to be able to have unreachable
code e.g. filled with 'nops' where both jt, jf just jump over it,
but that quirk we cannot change anymore in the classic checker
and have to carry onwards.
We're not filling up arrays with nops in lib/test_bpf.c
Zero is invalid opcode in eBPF and should stay so, since it's
an easy check for humans like me who are looking at eBPF in hex.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
