On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 5:58 AM, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pa...@netfilter.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 02:43:32PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> diff --git a/include/linux/filter.h b/include/linux/filter.h
>> index e568c8ef896b..6e6aab5e062b 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/filter.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/filter.h
>> @@ -25,20 +25,45 @@ struct sock;
>> struct sk_filter
>> {
>> atomic_t refcnt;
>> - unsigned int len; /* Number of filter blocks */
>> + /* len - number of insns in sock_filter program
>> + * len_ext - number of insns in socket_filter_ext program
>> + * jited - true if either original or extended program was JITed
>> + * orig_prog - original sock_filter program if not NULL
>> + */
>> + unsigned int len;
>> + unsigned int len_ext;
>> + unsigned int jited:1;
>
> This is consuming 4 bytes just to store the jited bit. I think you can
> scratch that bit from len, given the maximum filter length for bpf. I
> think the the jited bit change that David suggested have to come in
> first place as a separated patch in the series.
It was reviewed so many times that I would prefer not to break it
apart just to split it for single 'jited' bitfield, though I agree with taking
one bit from len.
I actually proposed it in 'bool vs bitfield' thread few days ago.
I think it can be done as a separate commit after this one goes in.
>> + struct sock_filter *orig_prog;
>
> If your new extended filtering is not used, this consumes 8 extra
> bytes + len_ext (bytes) in x86_64. I think a more generic way to make
> this is that you can move the original bpf filter and its length at
> the bottom of this structure after insns to store something like:
>
> struct sk_bpf_compat {
> struct sock_filter *prog;
> unsigned int len;
> };
>
> This would be only allocated when you filtering approach is used. For
> that you'll need some enum in sk_filter to indicate the filtering
> approach, but we'll save 8 bytes per filter in the end with regards to
> this current patch.
this is also can be done as separate commit after this one.
Though I don't like the idea, because access to 'prog' and 'len'
becomes very complicated. In every place we need a helper
function to calculate an offset to this 'sk_bpf_compat',
then typecast that memory location, etc.
Imo single pointer is much cleaner.
Thanks
Alexei
--
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/
