Re: [PATCH V4 00/20] The Runtime Verification (RV) interface

[Song Liu <song@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 1:29 PM Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
<bristot@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
[...]
> >>
> >> The point is that there are use-cases in which the users need the code in
> >> C. One of those is the work being done in the Linux Foundation Elisa group.
> >> There will be more formalism, like timed automata... which will require
> >> infra-structure that is easily accessible in C... including synchronization,
> >> and reactors that are available only in C on "per use-cases" basis - for
> >> example on embedded devices.
> >
> > Where can I find more information about the constraints of these use cases?
>
> Check the LF elisa workgroup.

Thanks for the information. It looks interesting.

>
> > I am asking because there are multiple ways to load a BPF program to the
> > system. If the constraint is that we cannot have bpftrace or bcc in the system,
> > maybe it is ok to run a standalone binary (written in C, compiled on a different
> > system).
>
> as I said... *I am aware of that*. I do like BPF! I was already convinced I will having
> things in BPF :-)
>
> dot2bpf does stand alone application, C + libbpf (and I did it this way to
> have the most of flexibility), it works (for the things that are possible in BPF).
> It shares most of the work in C/kernel, I will add it in the second patch series.

This is great! Looking forward to trying it out. :)

Thanks,
Song