I think the question becomes: how do you all creation of safe kernel code when that code becomes more functional. historically, BPF was just performing some filtering (near reception -> efficient). eBPF originally added more metrics and aggregation. But it's also been extended to change, drop, direct packets, and hook into all sorts of parts of the kernel. All based on the premise of compiling to safe code (which mainly means that you prove it does only what you intend).
So the Synthesis question is really: suppose a kernel only comes with eBPF, and you synthesize all the other interfaces you need?
I think this leads to some metaphysical navel-gazing - what is an kernel+OS, really? Practically, it's about providing stable interfaces (both upwards to user-space and downwards to hardware) so you can run things. Philosophically it's really just resource management, isolation.
I think the question becomes: how do you all creation of safe kernel code when that code becomes more functional. historically, BPF was just performing some filtering (near reception -> efficient). eBPF originally added more metrics and aggregation. But it's also been extended to change, drop, direct packets, and hook into all sorts of parts of the kernel. All based on the premise of compiling to safe code (which mainly means that you prove it does only what you intend).
So the Synthesis question is really: suppose a kernel only comes with eBPF, and you synthesize all the other interfaces you need?
I think this leads to some metaphysical navel-gazing - what is an kernel+OS, really? Practically, it's about providing stable interfaces (both upwards to user-space and downwards to hardware) so you can run things. Philosophically it's really just resource management, isolation.