On 12/08/15 at 10:10am, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> On 15-12-08 09:23 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> >On 15-12-08 02:33 AM, John Fastabend wrote:
>
> >;-> I feel a little vindicated with this discussion.
> >
> >Of course you can implement hardware using BPF!
>
> BTW - Just to be clear; I am not arguing for what that paper
> preaches. What the paper preaches is an academic exercise
> (square hole, round peg - must fit into OF description).
> What i am saying is you can take the ebpf instruction set and
> create a cpu that executes those instructions.
I'm still having a difficulty trying to understand what exactly
the intended proposal around this is. You may have just answered
my question but just to make sure: When people refer to
implementing or interpreting BPF in hardware, do they mean:
1) A limited BPF instruction set used as descriptive language
to define match/action logic?
2) A specific (versioned) BPF instruction set which hardware
can support?
3) The full BPF instruction set of the current kernel + all
defined helper functions and tail call support?
Would programs of 2) and 3) nature be simply rejected or would
the driver convert them somehow?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
