TSC Meeting Zoom link
...
Meeting note taker
Welcome to new attendees
- eBPF Package Repository proposal
LFN Induction
- Material development in progress through 02/22. Community input is required: LFN Induction Slide Deck - Draft
- Next review is 02/09 during TSC meeting (02/08 meeting is canceled)
- Developer & Testing Forum (tentative) - March 2022
General Topics (cover as needed)
Use Cases
Roadmap
Project structure
Governance
Technical Steering Committee
- Porting L3AF to Windows, status update and issues filed:
L3afd:
Make l3afd build on windows · Issue #12 · l3af-project/l3afd (github.com)
Xdp-root:
License question · Issue #3 · l3af-project/xdp-root (github.com)
Missing instructions on how to build · Issue #4 · l3af-project/xdp-root (github.com)
Use of deprecated set_link_xdp_fd() API · Issue #5 · l3af-project/xdp-root (github.com)
Support bpf_set_link_xdp_fd() libbpf api · Issue #746 · microsoft/ebpf-for-windows (github.com)
L3af-arch:
Timeouts on a windows host · Issue #11 · l3af-project/l3af-arch (github.com)
...
- Developer & Testing Forum (tentative) - March 2022 - A one or two day virual Developer and Testing Forum is being considered for March and focusing on cross-community collaboration (as opposed to project centric).
- Scope of forum: LFN
- Dave: Relationship to other orgs
- Non-LFN event might be wider and gain more attendance.
- Vicky: Projects associated with L3AF aren't LFN. Does it make sense for L3AF to be LFN?
- Karan: Probably the eBPF foundation makes sense, but this should be an evolution.
- L3AF scope is still evolving and growing.
- Vicky: Makes sense to get going somewhere. LFN is a good starting point and it shouldn't be too difficult to move.
- Look at other projects in LFN. Can we help them in some way? Do we fit in this ecosystem? Can we contribute?
- Karan: A couple of projects showed interest, but none have translated to a project yet.
- Louis: Collaboration points will start shaking out as we go forward.
- eBPF Package repository proposal https://github.com/l3af-project/l3af-arch/pull/10
- most items that need more discussion put in future version section
- Set up sub-committee to work on them.
- Sign off on basic version. Yes.
- Committee: Santhosh, Karan, Vicky (if time permits), Dave, Daniel, Steve Laughman
- most items that need more discussion put in future version section
- LFN induction
- Need community input (link above)
- L3AFd on Windows
- It builds!
- What is the project process, issue triage, etc?
- Karan: Multiple repos. Assigned owners for respective repos. Issues and PRs were managed by repo owner.
- Need to update the process by adding reviewers.
- Jason: Define a set of core code owners and reviewers for different repos
- Karan: Create versioning and release doc.
- Dave: PR signed off, what is the rest of the process for merging?
- Karan: We don't have a versioning doc yet. Generally we get at least 2 before merging.
- Dave: Distinguish between release and merging a PR.
- Every PR may not be a release.
- Use tags for releases. Don't block merging on having a release schedule.
- Santhosh: Need a release branch where PRs can be merged when the release is done or do we just merge to main?
- Call out minor and major releases.
- Dave: Semantic versioning. This is a minor release, has no impact on Linux Binaries
- Santhosh: create a branch for this and tag as 0.10, then create 0.11 and merge this PR.
- Thoughts?
- Karan: Put that into a 1-pager.
- Wallmart wants to deploy directly from the repo
- Dave: Usually enterprises have their own private fork for deployment
- Karan: Would like to start with direct deployment and migrate later.
- Dave: If you have a vulnerability, you can put a fix in without having to put it in the public repo.
- Karan: Schedule for next meeting.
- Dave: In production, run a fork identical to upstream, but may have Azure specific tests. Things like that.
- Things that are embargoed. General public cannot view. Cannot be put into public repo yet.
- Vicky: This allow us to avoid kerfluffles. Best security practice. Allows you to do enterprise specific stuff
- L3AFd
- Dave: Tests are scant, but they do pass. Should beef up in the future.
- Windows does not support TC at this time.
- Supports XDP. License for XDP in l3afd is GPL2
- Change to GPL2 or MIT? Allows wider use than Linux?
- Does the XDP have to be GPL2 only?
- This should apply to all public repos for L3AFd.
- Vicky: Add in PR?
- Santhosh: We (Wallmart) will look into it and get back to L3AFp on this.
- Karan: Is this legal or charter change?
- Dave: Do not believe it requires a charter change.
- Vicky: Owner of copyright can define licensing. Talk: Introduction to licensing.
- This means Wallmart will have to decide licensing.
- Karan: Thought we gave away copyright with the charter.
- Dave: Nope, you gave up IP, but Wallmart retains copyright.
- Dave: Tests are scant, but they do pass. Should beef up in the future.
- Document issues
- Comes with make file, but you can't just type make.
- UM app program depends on bpf, but calls setlink which is depricated.
- Generates warning, should be updated.
- Windows supports non-deprecated API only.
- But we could support deprecated
- Repo - sample dev environment using virtual box does not work. Timeout issues.
- Can run L3AFd without this for testing.
- Next step - get XDP-root working on Windows
- Windows uses self hosted runner for CI/CD.
- Charter
- Karan: has Apache2 or GPL2 or BSD
- Dave: If you have code that runs in Linux/Windows then this is too restrictive.
- Vicky: Look into having L3AF governance to make these changes/discussions done there.
- Louis: Can help with this by bringing charter changes to LFN legal team.
Action Items
Future Agenda Items
...