On 2026-07-07 15:44 -0700, Farid Zakaria wrote: > On Tue Jul 7, 2026 at 12:45 PM PDT, Christian Brauner wrote: > > On 2026-07-07 13:34 +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > >> On 2026-07-06 09:47:53-07:00, Farid Zakaria wrote: > >> > On Mon, Jul 6, 2026 at 9:01 AM Christian Brauner <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Ignoring the blatant bpf abuse here I think this is quite workable. So > >> > > this can be turned into an actual design and patch imho... > >> > > >> > Glad to see you think this proposal is in the right direction. > >> > Just for my edification, when you say "balatant bpf abuse", you mean > >> > how it abuses the socket bpf type? > >> > If so, do you have any guidance on a new type or should I just take a > >> > stab at it. > > > > I drafted a POC for you that should be closer to how this should look > > like with the bpf people in Cc. I'll let you lead from now on. I just > > wanted to help you out and illustrate a more viable direction. Might be > > that the bpf people want it done differentely. Let's see. > > Cool. I just saw the POC. > (I'm trying out aerc to view the patch series. I will also try b4, I've > never set it up before) > I will rework my qemu demo to use the struct_ops and go through my own > testing to see it work. > > That looks very similar to what I was researching with an LLM. I was > just going over the idea of struct_ops bpf (a new concept to me) and > using traditional bpftool load, a new bpf program type and kfuncs. > > You put out a surprising amount of polished code -- thank you.
I would not call this polished and it also lacks any tests... I've not given the locking much thought and maybe there's easy wins on the table I haven't been considering. > I would have had to lean on an LLM (heavily) and from the patches I've > put up so far they still have quite the gap to cover in terms of polish. This isn't my first bpf ride in both kernel and userspace. > What does "take it from here" mean in practicality? Bring it over the finish line so I can merge it into my tree. :) If the bpf people have no comments or worries than we're done. If they want changes I'd appreciate if you could make them and slap you Co-developed-by onto the whole thing as necessary. Also, please ensure that this works for all the cases you're considering.
