On Thu, Sep 3, 2026 at 4:03 AM Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't think bpf fits here. I haven't seen active use of RV and even less > so of any request from people who want this kind of programmability. > > So Nack for now. Sorry. >
A major application of RV is monitoring the combined behavior of the kernel and an external application, see [1] [2]. Adopting RV for these use cases is difficult because the monitors are currently built into the kernel. Blocking BPF adoption because it is not widely used risks a deadlock: RV not getting enough users, because it cannot use BPF, and BPF rejecting RV because it lacks sufficient use. Of course, I might be entirely wrong: RV may not end up being interesting enough to users even with the BPF hooks in place, or it might grow enough with only in-kernel monitors for you to take it seriously. However, we cannot predict that in advance. (Note also that the idea to use BPF in RV dates back to 2022 [3].) [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-trace-kernel/[email protected]/T/#e8a8b21136a60ad7c8f67b07c66f71de0ec0c1075 [2] https://docs.kernel.org/trace/rv/monitor_rtapp.html [3] https://gitlab.com/linux-rv-tools/dot2bpf Tomas
