On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 12:58:26 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 13.08.21 11:54, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 08:18:14 +0200, François Ozog wrote:
> > > This:
> > >
> > > https://linuxfoundation.org/press-release/facebook-google-isovalent-microsoft-and-netflix-launch-ebpf-foundation-as-part-of-the-linux-foundation
> > >
> > > Following earlier addition of eBPF in Windows kernel:
> > > https://github.com/microsoft/ebpf-for-windows
> > >
> > >
> > > Makes me think that the crazy idea I talked about a couple of months ago
> > > (subject of the mail) may not be that crazy….
> > Not crazy. I have discussed at least the EBC replacement bit with a
> > few people in the past.
> >
> > While admittedly the first time it was broached was in jest (I think
> > credit goes to Peter Jones), it's the best option I can see out there
> > today.
>
>
> There are a few reasons you may want to use eBPF:
>
> 1) Security
> 2) Cross-arch compatibility
>
> I don't think you can get either in UEFI's current module model, because you
> exchange direct flat memory model objects between entities. So while struct
> layouts, function call ABI, etc still matter you still don't get any
> additional security because you need to have full access to all memory at
> all times.
>
> So let me ask this the other way around: What are you trying to achieve?
Portable option ROMs with a supportable toolchain.
/
Leif
_______________________________________________
boot-architecture mailing list
boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture
