[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPhsuW7gt2fWj6KkHEsuVO6q9kSpU12nPTFq_DM8bffRk9=DFA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 14:10:34 -0700
From: Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
To: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...nel.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
Gabriele Paoloni <gpaoloni@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-trace-devel <linux-trace-devel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 00/20] The Runtime Verification (RV) interface
On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 1:29 PM Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
<bristot@...nel.org> 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. :)
Thanks,
Song
Powered by blists - more mailing lists