From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F6EC39A056 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2026 07:53:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791878004; cv=none; b=M+VyaRmISSS3UwpqqmMbVAh1gkiPDlgoeG+w6aIucKwbSYGIfFi4kMDWUNzPm2zPrFwJLe4P1k4vUjvA9HHQBMtYHUmLoKQefrHDsOeAF41/K4AZEdMbwpneNLrIHoePMBUyJZjMBuflH+AFBhvSMCd92vih68/ObqP8UkzW1Aw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791878004; c=relaxed/simple; bh=rw/8h1D+63nkFtZwWqlY2Q2ISZQHu8o4oIa0YyClyFg=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=cF2roX2o0UZhi7O+LTIvzZ/AJTu/NOI1Zaoxc6AoUtLF0vLn1cZhsebnazQVQxKB/dzlJi3EdUk6ZHemhPDgRrx4Ipz70YLwEA4UUgD/Kv3F7oEDbI60cQJFjOCVx4wRPX6UGwDkahn7gA60cIOkDC28sFNx2vDxmgF4voawozw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=AdTbrDwi; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=Ba3JR0LB; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="AdTbrDwi"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="Ba3JR0LB" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1791878002; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:autocrypt:autocrypt; bh=rw/8h1D+63nkFtZwWqlY2Q2ISZQHu8o4oIa0YyClyFg=; b=AdTbrDwiY1bD+9dcdgg+iV5uuhPsykSHNvwvwO4zVt22ydaCnarTzcSkyiROODbBQH4sca zsX7iZ/AExdT5rcW9YiOO1JTy9cJkd4GQ3W90VOJQZMSgw4IQi78vTFZfu9zJPh9VN7GtQ zDFGVG5UzejSAvI5/V0YiPRZL15geOA= Received: from mail-wr1-f70.google.com (mail-wr1-f70.google.com [209.85.221.70]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-262-_ID6pKZ8NaKe4JSQ51Z_sw-1; Tue, 13 Oct 2026 07:53:21 +0000 X-MC-Unique: _ID6pKZ8NaKe4JSQ51Z_sw-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: _ID6pKZ8NaKe4JSQ51Z_sw_1791878000 Received: by mail-wr1-f70.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-48b02d63407so1601157f8f.0 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2026 00:53:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=google; t=1791878000; x=1792482800; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=mime-version:user-agent:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :autocrypt:references:in-reply-to:date:cc:to:from:subject:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=rw/8h1D+63nkFtZwWqlY2Q2ISZQHu8o4oIa0YyClyFg=; b=Ba3JR0LBNzFaLnQaNdI25N4n67ol4JWNtHJqx5IENqGWa6VnhKbFUvqSo4onrNumjv ZT6r0cOSm4lVUgQTuE2qRWmcBUk58Yhjn9loBBhIbvu9Z9S5LcN7XAS7UPOMBqJzqcAZ gS0xyVG42OwJcpccBRAO5gfsO6eXbLTR16tDcvbXRS9kcvEkKhnKESo68mYYvTKO9n29 50zN9a0DHF6lkEWFfyKpnet3sdaOUOoEDvIb2itw7u0hNyauoQ7RIhJGjLkzrmtHofJw eQB/3zBMtn/3fs0caRlD2lbueokl6L3NFDHy5oep5YDvM5CQkXgLL1tqAs+/geAjM+DR wmXQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20260707; t=1791878000; x=1792482800; h=mime-version:user-agent:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :autocrypt:references:in-reply-to:date:cc:to:from:subject:message-id :x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to:content-type; bh=rw/8h1D+63nkFtZwWqlY2Q2ISZQHu8o4oIa0YyClyFg=; b=yUQC+G3zwHUTiHs/nSpr/mUS9lRohFx/Zt4QgLpespsMQluvlD8f41Zc6zf8wUgWcc TJLKPEibo4zAYghzht+CZYVkgy/MU55J3gFVqrDsbruZWJXQGsoNarwWs9Wq9y9mpkEc cUf500SRoFJPslb+iM2QbdNax+GC3mlcrrTAKzclvA5ehNh1ic0XDZF87auu6yzJ9jTe GbYvpOlLKAcDV871I6A6Bp79iuF/FHre9kW7uXlHVwrcECkSvpNlFJQxiMAhj5CUPrws T035pivTS4sGbHMDFrJmZ+/5jLUJicMZkfYPTkH61H5lW2pXPU30pTpKghWtXFpj9S+p rU9w== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AKwUvBzZBIhNIP6QqKuFEcvDXhVKB+u6yd8ANjEDomZJBEBt5OyEhN2N38CNIynJUA3PukqsvrBz4T4+A5v6/gQ=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AFq9FYJ468g/Vj956XB+8OjOPlSx7lFBIPd6+kssNlwEUQY5E5frvzus PRVvEWHmn2P2KBtXcyqvvxbbAAo4ptJMPMGyLY9QmH0RmoYDGm33oTvev7X8/zCkHFgFfLM58Ei Pnbh/V6qkDV/bXAo9h3A91VvV+RCzPnEqL0u63GHLgeaER3eMoLzAWAwWvrq92QH5GcCP1YZnlg == X-Gm-Gg: AYBFou2AnNk6I+SlKt5Z5fXEpy6bDVak4mIg9zfaFMJRZO7k3l0UaT4xauc52gWpdXt 9FAhNjGi/9I1zJXRhxqv5s6H3XU/lpSvUi5ipoYfDM0W0qN+rmjVETHZIyLaJqFr9eOGy/r4LzG slZAiS8xnvSIlEB7AUFUg4XRb203S9gsoTouBkmCIB/QV7RLzMqYdOkQejPWaRstiK/n/cZvrOJ +qL1tG16X0Lrs/8oaB7XmhlDbLND0bb3nY1udaOxcBEfnahcQP41EefLWcd6n4p3R8U/hDFesxH 93kkzXIm0sigUJtbPBtEdBVp/VjWpr/wx9sUb6WO4rvLRYIQ/uYbIxyj3EtQHa4C6lHEoFgadDj SHMSEQdVEez7ZeNvexEeQiMsR13ps X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:41cc:b0:48d:bae6:d7ba with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-48dbae6d911mr20398645f8f.26.1791877999752; Tue, 13 Oct 2026 00:53:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:41cc:b0:48d:bae6:d7ba with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-48dbae6d911mr20398627f8f.26.1791877999400; Tue, 13 Oct 2026 00:53:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gmonaco-thinkpadt14gen3.rmtit.csb ([195.174.135.130]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ffacd0b85a97d-48de0ac37acsm3531102f8f.34.2026.10.13.00.53.15 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 13 Oct 2026 00:53:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <8ba6ca530f6f35c04ce7147ad601eee6bca2d792.camel@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] rv: per-edge dwell-time statistics for per-cpu monitors From: Gabriele Monaco To: Steven Rostedt , Tobias Schaffner Cc: Jonathan Corbet , Shuah Khan , Masami Hiramatsu , Mathieu Desnoyers , linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rpm@xenomai.org, jan.kiszka@siemens.com Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2026 09:53:14 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20261012152129.4c57786c@gandalf.local.home> References: <20260911123439.463052-1-tobias.schaffner@siemens.com> <4759c9b0dacdf1f9c0cf47158895860dbd0ec401.camel@redhat.com> <20261012152129.4c57786c@gandalf.local.home> Autocrypt: addr=gmonaco@redhat.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata=mDMEZuK5YxYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAmJ3dM9Sz6/Hodu33Qrf8QH2bNeNbOikqYtxWFLVm0 1a0JEdhYnJpZWxlIE1vbmFjbyA8Z21vbmFjb0BrZXJuZWwub3JnPoiZBBMWCgBBFiEEysoR+AuB3R Zwp6j270psSVh4TfIFAmjKX2MCGwMFCQWjmoAFCwkIBwICIgIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgcCF4AACgk Q70psSVh4TfIQuAD+JulczTN6l7oJjyroySU55Fbjdvo52xiYYlMjPG7dCTsBAMFI7dSL5zg98I+8 cXY1J7kyNsY6/dcipqBM4RMaxXsOtCRHYWJyaWVsZSBNb25hY28gPGdtb25hY29AcmVkaGF0LmNvb T6InAQTFgoARAIbAwUJBaOagAULCQgHAgIiAgYVCgkICwIEFgIDAQIeBwIXgBYhBMrKEfgLgd0WcK eo9u9KbElYeE3yBQJoymCyAhkBAAoJEO9KbElYeE3yjX4BAJ/ETNnlHn8OjZPT77xGmal9kbT1bC1 7DfrYVISWV2Y1AP9HdAMhWNAvtCtN2S1beYjNybuK6IzWYcFfeOV+OBWRDQ== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.60.2 (3.60.2-2.fc44) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Mon, 2026-10-12 at 15:21 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > This brings back memories of conversations I had with Daniel. When asked > about how this is being used in formal verification of safety critical > systems, he told me that only the RV verifier itself needed to be verifie= d > and to show what it is verifying can be verified via it. For example, > running Linux in autonomous vehicles handling critical systems the watchd= og > had to be verified that it could catch lockups. As the watchdog would > trigger fail-safe mode if something went wrong. RV would be monitoring th= e > watchdog and if RV detected something it would panic the machine, which > would immediately force the vehicle into fail-safe mode (stop lots of > features and only keep those that can stop the vehicle safely). Yeah I talked to the same people working on that project, eventually there = were more problems like verifying RV can't be affected by the code it's verifyin= g. This is still an open problem though. > Can using BPF as the RV verifier be formally verified? As verification fo= r > RV monitors did look at the binary. Is BPF optimized to machine language > before it enters the kernel? If not, can we formally verify the BPF > verifier created the correct binary? Maybe, I don't know. As far as I understand, verifying the BPF verifier would take an insane amo= unt of work, the go-to approach is manually validating only the code you know y= ou are running. Let's say up to a point where you can realistically say it beh= aves like you want it to. In short, having a verifier doesn't add much value here, at least until som= eone verifies that too. Then there are the levels of indirection, BPF C code gets compiled to BPF bytecode and that gets JIT compiled inside the kernel. Now it's machine cod= e. If people are normally not validating clang/gcc produce machine code consis= tent to the verified source code, this case should be equivalent, but I'm just speculating here. Gabriele