search

ietf-wg-bpf / ebpf-docs

eBPF Standard Documentation
37 stars 5 forks source link

ISA: RFC compliance question #50

Closed dthaler closed 4 months ago

dthaler commented 10 months ago

Now that we have some new “v4” instructions, it seems a good time to ask about what it means to support (or comply with) the ISA RFC once published. Does it mean that a verifier/disassembler/JIT compiler/etc. MUST support all the non-deprecated instructions in the document? That is any runtime or tool that doesn’t support the new instructions is considered non-compliant with the BPF ISA?

Or should we create some things that are SHOULDs, or finer grained units of compliance so as to not declare existing deployments non-compliant? Previously we only talked about cases where instructions were added in an extension RFC which would naturally provide a separate RFC to conform to. But I don’t think we discussed things like new instructions in the main spec like we have now.

dthaler commented 6 months ago
dthaler commented 5 months ago

Proposed text posted in https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bpf/oH2tJmsrAXuRmEer6zSh9JHsosw/ And PR #67

dthaler commented 4 months ago

Fixed in draft -01