The BPF instruction set architecture is now RFC 9669

[throw0101a]

* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9669

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBPF

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Packet_Filter

[throw0101a]

Somewhat related:

> P4 is a programming language for controlling packet forwarding planes in networking devices, such as routers and switches. In contrast to a general purpose language such as C or Python, P4 is a domain-specific language with a number of constructs optimized for network data forwarding. P4 is distributed as open-source, permissively licensed code, and is maintained by the P4 Project (formerly the P4 Language Consortium), a not-for-profit organization hosted by the Open Networking Foundation.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P4_(programming_language)

[majke]

So… eBPF is now BPF and old BPF is now cBPF or classic bpf.

[westurner]

And there's wasm-bpf: https://github.com/eunomia-bpf/wasm-bpf#how-it-works

But should (browser) WASM processes cross the kernel boundary for BPF performance?

FWIW EVM/eWASM opcodes have a cost in gas/particles.

[M95D]

Is this going to be like the DeviceTree standard? The kernels devs invent it, it gets an official specification/standard, but the kernel itself doesn't conform to that specification?

[princearthur]

Nice... timing to get that number.

[karmakaze]

Kind of close to ISO 9660 so doubly easy to remember.