From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (lindbergh.monkeyblade.net [23.128.96.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79D872069F for ; Tue, 23 May 2023 16:32:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qk1-f182.google.com (mail-qk1-f182.google.com [209.85.222.182]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7F45C2 for ; Tue, 23 May 2023 09:32:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-f182.google.com with SMTP id af79cd13be357-75b00e5f8e4so6799085a.0 for ; Tue, 23 May 2023 09:32:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1684859524; x=1687451524; h=user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=2fxaaxZmnkZ6/IheHqrPi/4FP/lLx6cJmznjM+Jz/cU=; b=j/6H7HPxFGlEDNwMLQPWCxzhZqkpyi9y5NMttax1rkrHQy22v/tE+BobB99x4LtE3p IbciK0NA6hTRNJhEilkUq08sEJmcUR51Ul5lTp8BCnYsTuvkF9dVKm1WZmHNHlYuM8ZQ 4fEyz38+SbSYeMIMIm7YGiTTZYgpRU8grzZafnq1QPg20oSFp5OKI3/FpinBRscxRREn i6SpLdPRrbeK51kRd9uQosGoZTD74fVk0gXT9DGAe/Oh0fCIoN0BJp9FV/TdzhVTL95m j88PEOrY1RVrK4NrLKRemBr9+fhzb4Fs62RF7gwPyEIBjoGB3L55ty8eWPSfjbDFMFp8 FJPw== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDzchga4Qgp0JrAfLdl7fcwso9ARvXUew4q73xGJdKpHWD8Trftk tVClqdLPn7DOtADpUZEpq5I= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ5rWPuUauTb5eE9Xh6sGhOy0DHmGAQS2gxUEGH8U/A67JLtx7HbZrPrnbzc1XoQchjZ81IwdQ== X-Received: by 2002:a37:c16:0:b0:75b:23a0:d9e2 with SMTP id 22-20020a370c16000000b0075b23a0d9e2mr4226770qkm.56.1684859523560; Tue, 23 May 2023 09:32:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from maniforge ([2620:10d:c091:400::5:5c45]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m6-20020ae9e006000000b0074e4b1fe0aesm2608428qkk.94.2023.05.23.09.32.02 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 23 May 2023 09:32:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 May 2023 11:32:00 -0500 From: David Vernet To: Dave Thaler Cc: "Jose E. Marchesi" , "bpf@ietf.org" , bpf , Erik Kline , "Suresh Krishnan (sureshk)" , Christoph Hellwig , Alexei Starovoitov Subject: Re: [Bpf] IETF BPF working group draft charter Message-ID: <20230523163200.GD20100@maniforge> References: <87v8grkn67.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0rdy26o.fsf@gnu.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.10 (2023-03-25) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 07:42:11PM +0000, Dave Thaler wrote: > Jose E. Marchesi wrote: > > I would think that the way the x86_64, aarch64, risc-v, sparc, mips, powerpc > > architectures, along with their variants, handle their ELF extensions and > > psABI, ensures interoperability good enough for the problem at hand, but ok. > > I'm definitely not an expert in these matters. > > I am not familiar enough with those to make any comment about that. Hi Dave, Taking a step back here, perhaps we need to think about all of this more generically as "ABI", rather than ELF "extensions", "bindings", etc. In my opinion this would include, at a minimum, the following items from the current proposed WG charter: * the eBPF bindings for the ELF executable file format, * the platform support ABI, including calling convention, linker requirements, and relocations, As far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong), there isn't really a precedence for standardizing ABIs like this. For example, x86 calling conventions are not standardized. Solaris, Linux, FreeBSD, macOS, etc all follow the System V AMD64 ABI, but Microsoft of course does not. As Jose pointed out, such standards extensions do not exist for psABI ELF extensions for various architectures either. While it may be that we do end up needing to standardize these ABIs for BPF, I'm beginning to think that we should just remove them from the current WG charter, and consider standardizing them at a later time if it's clear that it's actually necessary. I think this is especially true given that we don't seem to be getting any closer to having consensus, and that we're very short on time given that Erik is going to be proposing the charter to the rest of the ADs in just two days on 5/25. Thanks, David From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (lindbergh.monkeyblade.net [23.128.96.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3739D21CEA for ; Tue, 23 May 2023 16:32:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org [50.223.129.194]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72689CD for ; Tue, 23 May 2023 09:32:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C525DC151B00 for ; Tue, 23 May 2023 09:32:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1684859530; bh=iVNHnUJV8UbWloP0mWFUX4pUTauzf2De42UYy0INmfM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe; b=BNVeviMzfxpYJByfBLpWAb6LhBukwAwASSUkQO65oUdwn7jCdK5+HCvNb74tYBunD NHbvQaleqQqWTWzYldELlycAM1ePABvkdqWDB2pCRzyceSPNy0iSe0SieeNrisqYwC fWlA/B8VrpIfCHxjTJaSSNqy1CwVtEhsBoQU/N5A= X-Mailbox-Line: From bpf-bounces@ietf.org Tue May 23 09:32:10 2023 Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AA0EC15109C; Tue, 23 May 2023 09:32:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1684859530; bh=iVNHnUJV8UbWloP0mWFUX4pUTauzf2De42UYy0INmfM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe; b=BNVeviMzfxpYJByfBLpWAb6LhBukwAwASSUkQO65oUdwn7jCdK5+HCvNb74tYBunD NHbvQaleqQqWTWzYldELlycAM1ePABvkdqWDB2pCRzyceSPNy0iSe0SieeNrisqYwC fWlA/B8VrpIfCHxjTJaSSNqy1CwVtEhsBoQU/N5A= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 258C3C151097 for ; Tue, 23 May 2023 09:32:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Score: -1.553 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1ek6QbxTrpZm for ; Tue, 23 May 2023 09:32:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qk1-f173.google.com (mail-qk1-f173.google.com [209.85.222.173]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB435C151075 for ; Tue, 23 May 2023 09:32:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-f173.google.com with SMTP id af79cd13be357-75b0f2ce4b7so3460385a.2 for ; Tue, 23 May 2023 09:32:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1684859524; x=1687451524; h=user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=2fxaaxZmnkZ6/IheHqrPi/4FP/lLx6cJmznjM+Jz/cU=; b=EJ2MgYukNj0yGApCXNVN/s9K8uLad2otQ0Ub8bHUaG/TSUoO57uoNoA1qoWqcENdTh gObciiZIyg4ody0aIlZsh9UEaKy2RVGHMGAUE4GnZMFV5N7R5abivVMxGA9zTqcE9jiT QM5gQSMCXpfU8yE2oB8uMk3gfcQ5inz6qU2Z2Y9Zdk0WKPHX0zHFKx189l7VYQjn0acu xnO1ucnTleCeiul8HnhGg5iFb39SuERGCHCH5/pkiodn3SgZk0YHsmPVBT3HqAklTvhC DKD0NDizPM0WZO+XYp1aUgNN27uQHUfARqt/LB+oVcT1Wjko/PQe7TCwcTuH+ya942rY y6yA== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDxESLgF0PGwoh2vP5KAF2CJzA7dS0/io9DIdjl0Z6/Kxdn/jPG9 QzNb3uUy5L2kjFapxYYXu/k= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ5rWPuUauTb5eE9Xh6sGhOy0DHmGAQS2gxUEGH8U/A67JLtx7HbZrPrnbzc1XoQchjZ81IwdQ== X-Received: by 2002:a37:c16:0:b0:75b:23a0:d9e2 with SMTP id 22-20020a370c16000000b0075b23a0d9e2mr4226770qkm.56.1684859523560; Tue, 23 May 2023 09:32:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from maniforge ([2620:10d:c091:400::5:5c45]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m6-20020ae9e006000000b0074e4b1fe0aesm2608428qkk.94.2023.05.23.09.32.02 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 23 May 2023 09:32:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 May 2023 11:32:00 -0500 From: David Vernet To: Dave Thaler Cc: "Jose E. Marchesi" , "bpf@ietf.org" , bpf , Erik Kline , "Suresh Krishnan (sureshk)" , Christoph Hellwig , Alexei Starovoitov Message-ID: <20230523163200.GD20100@maniforge> References: <87v8grkn67.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0rdy26o.fsf@gnu.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.10 (2023-03-25) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Bpf] IETF BPF working group draft charter X-BeenThere: bpf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of BPF/eBPF standardization efforts within the IETF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: bpf-bounces@ietf.org Sender: "Bpf" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net Message-ID: <20230523163200.VNPl79FiElxxA7VCvvjkFt3eIPXmZv7fjR8R42pSbC4@z> On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 07:42:11PM +0000, Dave Thaler wrote: > Jose E. Marchesi wrote: > > I would think that the way the x86_64, aarch64, risc-v, sparc, mips, powerpc > > architectures, along with their variants, handle their ELF extensions and > > psABI, ensures interoperability good enough for the problem at hand, but ok. > > I'm definitely not an expert in these matters. > > I am not familiar enough with those to make any comment about that. Hi Dave, Taking a step back here, perhaps we need to think about all of this more generically as "ABI", rather than ELF "extensions", "bindings", etc. In my opinion this would include, at a minimum, the following items from the current proposed WG charter: * the eBPF bindings for the ELF executable file format, * the platform support ABI, including calling convention, linker requirements, and relocations, As far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong), there isn't really a precedence for standardizing ABIs like this. For example, x86 calling conventions are not standardized. Solaris, Linux, FreeBSD, macOS, etc all follow the System V AMD64 ABI, but Microsoft of course does not. As Jose pointed out, such standards extensions do not exist for psABI ELF extensions for various architectures either. While it may be that we do end up needing to standardize these ABIs for BPF, I'm beginning to think that we should just remove them from the current WG charter, and consider standardizing them at a later time if it's clear that it's actually necessary. I think this is especially true given that we don't seem to be getting any closer to having consensus, and that we're very short on time given that Erik is going to be proposing the charter to the rest of the ADs in just two days on 5/25. Thanks, David -- Bpf mailing list Bpf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bpf