Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 00/17] Introduce eBPF support for HID devices

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>]

> The logic is the following (see also the last patch for some more
> documentation):
> - hid-bpf first preloads a BPF program in the kernel that does a few
>   things:
>    * find out which attach_btf_id are associated with our trace points
>    * adds a bpf_tail_call() BPF program that I can use to "call" any
>      other BPF program stored into a jump table
>    * monitors the releases of struct bpf_prog, and when there are no
>      other users than us, detach the bpf progs from the HID devices
> - users then declare their tracepoints and then call
>   hid_bpf_attach_prog() in a SEC("syscall") program
> - hid-bpf then calls multiple time the bpf_tail_call() program with a
>   different index in the jump table whenever there is an event coming
>   from a matching HID device

So driver abstractions like UDI are now perfectly fine as long as they
are written using a hip new VM?

This whole idea seems like a bad idea, against the Linux spirit and
now actually useful - it is totally trivial to write a new HID
driver alreay, and if it isn't in some cases we need to fix that.

So a big fat NAK to the idea of using eBPF for actual driver logic.