From: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
To: "bpf@ietf.org" <bpf@ietf.org>
Cc: bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: ISA RFC compliance question
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 20:17:10 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <PH7PR21MB3878027C6E6FB01651023912A3C0A@PH7PR21MB3878.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <PH7PR21MB387850B8DB6A2A5FB87DAC06A3C0A@PH7PR21MB3878.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
[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?
Or should we create some things that are SHOULDs, or finer grained units of
compliance so as to not declare existing deployments non-compliant?
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
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dave Thaler <dthaler=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
To: "bpf@ietf.org" <bpf@ietf.org>
Cc: bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Bpf] ISA RFC compliance question
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 20:17:10 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <PH7PR21MB3878027C6E6FB01651023912A3C0A@PH7PR21MB3878.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20230929201710.RwJBPlDe5fC5iPZbJZr3Xg2HsrDV_KXd125Tmy5EMjw@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <PH7PR21MB387850B8DB6A2A5FB87DAC06A3C0A@PH7PR21MB3878.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
[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?
Or should we create some things that are SHOULDs, or finer grained units of
compliance so as to not declare existing deployments non-compliant?
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-29 20:17 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 [this message]
2023-09-29 20:17 ` Dave Thaler
2023-09-30 15:48 ` Alexei Starovoitov
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=PH7PR21MB3878027C6E6FB01651023912A3C0A@PH7PR21MB3878.namprd21.prod.outlook.com \
--to=dthaler@microsoft.com \
--cc=bpf@ietf.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.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).