There isn't really anything other than just "BPF" at this point,
so referring to it as "eBPF" in our standards document just causes
unnecessary confusion. Let's just be consistent and use "BPF".
Suggested-by: Will Hawkins <hawkinsw@obs.cr>
Signed-off-by: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230828155948.123405-4-void@manifault.com
As specified in the IETF BPF charter, the BPF working group has plans to
add one or more informational documents that recommend conventions and
guidelines for producing portable BPF program binaries. The
instruction-set.rst document currently contains a "Registers and calling
convention" subsection which dictates a calling convention that belongs
in an ABI document, rather than an instruction set document. Let's move
it to a new abi.rst document so we can clean it up. The abi.rst document
will of course be significantly changed and expanded upon over time. For
now, it's really just a placeholder which will contain ABI-specific
language that doesn't belong in other documents.
Signed-off-by: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230828155948.123405-3-void@manifault.com
In commit 4d496be9ca ("bpf,docs: Create new standardization
subdirectory"), I added a standardization/ directory to the BPF
documentation, which will contain the docs that will be standardized
as part of the effort with the IETF.
I included linux-notes.rst in that directory, but I shouldn't have. It
doesn't contain anything that will be standardized. Let's move it back
to Documentation/bpf.
Signed-off-by: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230828155948.123405-2-void@manifault.com
The offset to use when calculating the target of a program-local call is
in the instruction's imm field, not its offset field.
Signed-off-by: Will Hawkins <hawkinsw@obs.cr>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Acked-by: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230826053258.1860167-1-hawkinsw@obs.cr
Add additional precision on the semantics of the sign extension
operations in BPF. In addition, fix a very minor typo.
Signed-off-by: Will Hawkins <hawkinsw@obs.cr>
Acked-by: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230808212503.197834-1-hawkinsw@obs.cr
Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
Give a single place where the shorthand for types are defined and the
semantics of helper functions are described.
Signed-off-by: Will Hawkins <hawkinsw@obs.cr>
Acked-by: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230807140651.122484-1-hawkinsw@obs.cr
Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
Improve documentation for cpu=v4 instructions based on
David's suggestions.
Cc: bpf@ietf.org
Suggested-by: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
Acked-by: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230728225105.919595-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Add documentation in instruction-set.rst for new instruction encoding
and their corresponding operations. Also removed the question
related to 'no BPF_SDIV' in bpf_design_QA.rst since we have
BPF_SDIV insn now.
Cc: bpf@ietf.org
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230728011342.3724411-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
This patch fixes the documentation of the BPF_NEG instruction to
denote that it does not use the source register operand.
Signed-off-by: Jose E. Marchesi <jose.marchesi@oracle.com>
Acked-by: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230726092543.6362-1-jose.marchesi@oracle.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
The BPF standardization effort is actively underway with the IETF. As
described in the BPF Working Group (WG) charter in [0], there are a
number of proposed documents, some informational and some proposed
standards, that will be drafted as part of the standardization effort.
[0]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/bpf/about/
Though the specific documents that will formally be standardized will
exist as Internet Drafts (I-D) and WG documents in the BPF WG
datatracker page, the source of truth from where those documents will be
generated will reside in the kernel documentation tree (originating in
the bpf-next tree).
Because these documents will be used to generate the I-D and WG
documents which will be standardized with the IETF, they are a bit
special as far as kernel-tree documentation goes:
- They will be dual licensed with LGPL-2.1 OR BSD-2-Clause
- IETF I-D and WG documents (the documents which will actually be
standardized) will be auto-generated from these documents.
In order to keep things clearly organized in the BPF documentation tree,
and to make it abundantly clear where standards-related documentation
needs to go, we should move standards-relevant documents into a separate
standardization/ subdirectory.
Signed-off-by: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230710183027.15132-1-void@manifault.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
