[HN Gopher] Every boring problem found in eBPF (2022)
___________________________________________________________________
Every boring problem found in eBPF (2022)
Author : udev4096
Score : 157 points
Date : 2024-11-01 15:50 UTC (5 days ago)
(HTM) web link (tmpout.sh)
(TXT) w3m dump (tmpout.sh)
| magicalhippo wrote:
| BPF recently got published as an RFC[1], posted here[2] today and
| earlier here[3][4].
|
| [1]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9669
|
| [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42051950
|
| [3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42024377
|
| [4]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42038371
| tptacek wrote:
| This is so weird to me. It's not an interoperable standard. It
| isn't even interoperable on Linux, the one OS where it's
| popular.
| kimixa wrote:
| If you wanted it to _become_ an interoperable standard, that
| 's the obvious step, right?
| maxmcd wrote:
| There is an explanation here:
| https://lwn.net/ml/all/20241105035101.GD41004@maniforge/
| tptacek wrote:
| Right, for offload, but XDP programs also depend on helper
| definitions, which themselves have not been consistent
| between versions of the Linux kernel.
| stefan_ wrote:
| And some (most?) of the helpers end up being "read memory
| at X", which has some obvious problems with offloading.
| tptacek wrote:
| I mean, there really is working XDP offload (Netronome,
| right?) so it can be made to work, but this spec doesn't
| define the hardest part of interoperability.
| _flux wrote:
| It probably still helps to have a standardised baseline.
| Then the vendors can just document deviations from it,
| and the deviations are probably quite small, not
| necessating new compilers for example (just guessing here
| ;)).
| Retr0id wrote:
| By the way, this article is published as part of the tmp.0ut
| zine, and the CFP for the next issue is currently open:
| https://tmpout.sh/blog/vol4-cfp.html
| humanfromearth9 wrote:
| Wow that's a tl;dr for me. Not only because of the length, also
| because of format. Not very readable on a smartphone...
| remram wrote:
| I'm usually against separate "mobile versions" of websites but
| wow, this needs one.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-06 23:02 UTC)