On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 11:22 AM Jose E. Marchesi <jose.marchesi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hello BPF people! > > In order to ease the testing of the GCC bpf port we are adding a number > of extensions to the BPF ISA. > > We would like to use one bit in the e_flags field of the ELF header in > order to flag that the code in the ELF file is not plain eBPF: > > For EM_BPF: > > #define EF_BPF_GNU_XBPF 0x00000001 > > Any objection? I've looked at your lpc slides and the extensions don't look like BPF extensions. At least I didn't see any attempt to make them verifiable. In that sense it's not BPF and it's not correct to use EM_BPF for it. I suggest to define your own EM for your ISA.
