Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 11:26:40 +0200 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au> Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, "Christian S.J. Peron" <csjp@freebsd.org>, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/net bpf.c Message-ID: <97026.1118136400@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 07 Jun 2005 19:24:14 %2B1000." <20050607092414.GC39114@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20050607092414.GC39114@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au>, Peter Jeremy writes: >On Mon, 2005-Jun-06 22:19:59 +0000, Christian S.J. Peron wrote: >> Change the maximum bpf program instruction limitation from being hard- >> coded at 512 (BPF_MAXINSNS) to being tunable. This is useful for users >> who wish to use complex or large bpf programs when filtering traffic. >> For now we will default it to BPF_MAXINSNS. I have tested bpf programs >> with well over 21,000 instructions without any problems. > >If people are using really large BPF programs, is there a benefit in >moving from bytecode to machine code? I'm sure there would be, but we wouldn't be compatible with everybody else if we did so. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?97026.1118136400>