From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
To: Dave Thaler <dthaler=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "bpf@ietf.org" <bpf@ietf.org>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Bpf] ISA RFC compliance question
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2023 08:48:18 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAADnVQL69iqzxsNRDLKW22B=3sJpO0Yy2yHzioWZmhtQvUwtTQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20230930154818.mO7_UZlibXkJS77E0HjxH-x-CnEQPDw_tvKZUF2VbhY@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <PH7PR21MB3878027C6E6FB01651023912A3C0A@PH7PR21MB3878.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 1:17 PM Dave Thaler
<dthaler=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> [fixing weird character issue in email below that caused a bounce]
>
> Now that we have some new "v4" instructions, it seems a good time to ask about
> what it means to support (or comply with) the ISA RFC once published. Does
> it mean that a verifier/disassembler/JIT compiler/etc. MUST support *all* the
> non-deprecated instructions in the document? That is any runtime or tool that
> doesn't support the new instructions is considered non-compliant with the BPF ISA?
In the linux kernel not all JITs support all instructions.
That was the case even before v4 additions.
Same goes for various user space tools.
> Or should we create some things that are SHOULDs, or finer grained units of
> compliance so as to not declare existing deployments non-compliant?
I suspect 'non-compliance' label will cause an unnecessary backlash,
so I would go with SHOULD wording.
> Previously we only talked about cases where instructions were added in an
> extension RFC which would naturally provide a separate RFC to conform to.
> But I don't think we discussed things like new instructions in the main spec like
> we have now.
>
> Dave
>
> --
> Bpf mailing list
> Bpf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bpf
--
Bpf mailing list
Bpf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bpf
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-30 15:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-09-29 20:14 [Bpf] ISA RFC compliance question Dave Thaler
2023-09-29 20:17 ` Dave Thaler
2023-09-29 20:17 ` [Bpf] " Dave Thaler
2023-09-30 15:48 ` Alexei Starovoitov [this message]
2023-09-30 15:48 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-10-05 20:14 ` Dave Thaler
2023-10-05 20:14 ` Dave Thaler
2023-10-06 23:06 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-10-06 23:06 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-10-23 22:15 ` David Vernet
2023-10-23 22:15 ` David Vernet
2023-10-19 6:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-10-19 6:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-10-23 15:06 ` Will Hawkins
2023-10-23 15:06 ` Will Hawkins
2023-10-24 4:00 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-10-24 4:00 ` Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAADnVQL69iqzxsNRDLKW22B=3sJpO0Yy2yHzioWZmhtQvUwtTQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=bpf@ietf.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dthaler=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).