> On Aug 22, 2018, at 12:41 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>
> On 08/22/2018 11:25 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Pete Heist writes:
>>
>> Well, it operates on the byte code and errs on the side of safety. I.e.,
>> if it can't prove your program is safe it is going to reject it. Which
>>
On 08/22/2018 11:25 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Pete Heist writes:
>
>> The eBPF verifier seems fragile to me, where I’d be moving lines of
>> code around and getting different error messages in an alien tongue.
>
> Well, it operates on the byte code and errs on the side of safety.
> On Aug 22, 2018, at 11:25 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>
> Pete Heist writes:
>
>> The eBPF verifier seems fragile to me, where I’d be moving lines of
>> code around and getting different error messages in an alien tongue.
>
> Well, it operates on the byte code and errs on the side of
Pete Heist writes:
> The eBPF verifier seems fragile to me, where I’d be moving lines of
> code around and getting different error messages in an alien tongue.
Well, it operates on the byte code and errs on the side of safety. I.e.,
if it can't prove your program is safe it is going to reject
The eBPF verifier seems fragile to me, where I’d be moving lines of code around
and getting different error messages in an alien tongue. I might need to move
to some later code than what comes with Ubuntu 18.04. This example is helpful
to have though, thanks...
> On Aug 18, 2018, at 7:19 PM,
