On 12/08/15 at 10:10am, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:

On 15-12-08 09:23 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:

quoted

On 15-12-08 02:33 AM, John Fastabend wrote:

quoted

;-> I feel a little vindicated with this discussion.

Of course you can implement hardware using BPF!

BTW - Just to be clear; I am not arguing for what that paper
preaches. What the paper preaches is an academic exercise
(square hole, round peg - must fit into OF description).
What i am saying is you can take the ebpf instruction set and
create a cpu that executes those instructions.

I'm still having a difficulty trying to understand what exactly
the intended proposal around this is. You may have just answered
my question but just to make sure: When people refer to
implementing or interpreting BPF in hardware, do they mean:

 1) A limited BPF instruction set used as descriptive language
    to define match/action logic?
 2) A specific (versioned) BPF instruction set which hardware
    can support?
 3) The full BPF instruction set of the current kernel + all
    defined helper functions and tail call support?

Would programs of 2) and 3) nature be simply rejected or would
the driver convert them somehow?