Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1655368610.git.bristot@kernel.org> <CAPhsuW4eDhVs2iu0y40LiFyKweJ+3d82-748kavGg5KXWsRuZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <850ef2bc-f70d-afb2-a12f-8cc4c795dac8@kernel.org> <CAPhsuW67decxVH4n4YitkW40OmUqq2LRX7Ry4jqdjrgXSAgknA@mail.gmail.com>
 <d0f37c76-9211-da12-20e8-a7dde9c220ef@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <d0f37c76-9211-da12-20e8-a7dde9c220ef@kernel.org>
From:   Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 23 Jun 2022 14:10:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPhsuW7gt2fWj6KkHEsuVO6q9kSpU12nPTFq_DM8bffRk9=DFA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 00/20] The Runtime Verification (RV) interface
To:     Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@kernel.org>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@linux-watchdog.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Gabriele Paoloni <gpaoloni@redhat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-trace-devel <linux-trace-devel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 1:29 PM Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
<bristot@kernel.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