lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 23 Jun 2022 14:10:34 -0700
From:   Song Liu <>
To:     Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <>,
        Wim Van Sebroeck <>,
        Guenter Roeck <>,
        Jonathan Corbet <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Will Deacon <>,
        Catalin Marinas <>,
        Marco Elver <>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <>,
        Shuah Khan <>,
        Gabriele Paoloni <>,
        Juri Lelli <>,
        Clark Williams <>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <>,
        open list <>,
        linux-trace-devel <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 00/20] The Runtime Verification (RV) interface

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 1:29 PM Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
<> wrote:
> >>
> >> The point is that there are use-cases in which the users need the code in
> >> C. One of those is the work being done in the Linux Foundation Elisa group.
> >> There will be more formalism, like timed automata... which will require
> >> infra-structure that is easily accessible in C... including synchronization,
> >> and reactors that are available only in C on "per use-cases" basis - for
> >> example on embedded devices.
> >
> > Where can I find more information about the constraints of these use cases?
> Check the LF elisa workgroup.

Thanks for the information. It looks interesting.

> > I am asking because there are multiple ways to load a BPF program to the
> > system. If the constraint is that we cannot have bpftrace or bcc in the system,
> > maybe it is ok to run a standalone binary (written in C, compiled on a different
> > system).
> as I said... *I am aware of that*. I do like BPF! I was already convinced I will having
> things in BPF :-)
> dot2bpf does stand alone application, C + libbpf (and I did it this way to
> have the most of flexibility), it works (for the things that are possible in BPF).
> It shares most of the work in C/kernel, I will add it in the second patch series.

This is great! Looking forward to trying it out. :)


Powered by blists - more mailing lists