IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Bpf] IETF BPF working group draft charter

Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> Thu, 25 May 2023 07:44 UTC

Return-Path: <BATV+2513424fa4087fe74412+7214+infradead.org+hch@bombadil.srs.infradead.org>
X-Original-To: bpf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bpf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 500F6C151545 for <bpf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 May 2023 00:44:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eh1njCuMdrCX for <bpf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 May 2023 00:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::133]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BB04C151544 for <bpf@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 May 2023 00:44:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version :References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=FArhRYBG4hLs81GjlG/1gx4kisZ0PHnJyr4vVmIJfJw=; b=JGUa3wKezXP9h8RJNNZzcpg7wX C9k7CSzeVW/g4b88XXJ5brXGMG+30ZgpoGoF56eHy/UvodHCKbHI7sPZgvkoxzuyJCqdvC9qFiCwD JEjErKH1Tj51eebhBTYbnXCuvRDT88M6vObI9S8BY6W15u5rItGBB9YTzZd4LAA0H4lS04HkqA9df +dZIkjHCh4RuAq22Um/0KNSZVhNGFVoPsX35Zy1VrEgNfaL7Hh7/C+e4/gxEJW04BOKN//BuYXu9y CbUGlEUy7yICQvZVQtLORgeOowTI7e6oVW/Q+o/rdTrySrV79SeYYBPmjmNI164/gIQ1us33q497c 8bhn01rA==;
Received: from hch by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.96 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1q25e8-00FrUy-1s; Thu, 25 May 2023 07:44:28 +0000
Date: Thu, 25 May 2023 00:44:28 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "bpf@ietf.org" <bpf@ietf.org>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, "Jose E. Marchesi" <jemarch@gnu.org>, Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>, "Suresh Krishnan (sureshk)" <sureshk@cisco.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <ZG8R3JgOPHo7xn61@infradead.org>
References: <PH7PR21MB38780769D482CC5F83768D3CA37E9@PH7PR21MB3878.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <87v8grkn67.fsf@gnu.org> <PH7PR21MB3878BCFA99C1585203982670A37E9@PH7PR21MB3878.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <87r0rdy26o.fsf@gnu.org> <PH7PR21MB3878B869D69FD35FA718AF5DA37FA@PH7PR21MB3878.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <20230523163200.GD20100@maniforge> <18272.1684864698@localhost> <20230523202827.GA33347@maniforge>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230523202827.GA33347@maniforge>
X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from <hch@infradead.org> by bombadil.infradead.org. See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bpf/AHivtOLnEIjURTa7rEbLxqdMah0>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 25 May 2023 10:43:38 -0700
Subject: Re: [Bpf] IETF BPF working group draft charter
X-BeenThere: bpf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of BPF/eBPF standardization efforts within the IETF <bpf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bpf>, <mailto:bpf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bpf/>
List-Post: <mailto:bpf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bpf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bpf>, <mailto:bpf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 May 2023 07:50:07 -0000

I'm really lost in this discussion.  All aspects of the ABI are
a required part of interoperability.  And one of the promises of
this IETF eBPF project is to provide for this interoperability.

This is a very different situation from the binary ABI for Linux
or Windows, which has traditionally never been interoperable between
vendors, odd examples like iBCS2 [1] notwithstanding.

I'm fine with watering down the wording in the charter a bit in not
beeing too specific what documebts we want to work on for the binary
compatibility, but I think having it is essential.

What do we gain by not having the full binary interface in the working
group scope?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Binary_Compatibility_Standard

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status