next suggestions for bpftime.
Thank you for sharing your detailed thoughts and for your dedication to advancing the eBPF ecosystem through your work on bpftime. It’s evident that you’ve invested significant effort into this project, and your commitment to both the open-source community and academic research is commendable.
Is Your Thought Valuable?
Absolutely. The challenges you’ve identified—such as the complexity of managing control plane applications, the need for compatibility across heterogeneous systems, and the limitations of existing eBPF implementations—are real and significant. Addressing these issues has the potential to make a meaningful impact on both industry practices and academic research.
Does Your Story Make Sense?
Yes, your story articulates a clear vision of the current limitations within the eBPF ecosystem and how bpftime aims to address them. You’ve recognized a gap in the ability to run real-world eBPF applications outside of the Linux kernel without significant rewrites or engineering effort. By proposing a general extension framework and a userspace eBPF runtime that maintains compatibility with existing tools, you’re tackling a problem that hasn’t been fully addressed in prior work.
Suggestions and Next Steps
Based on your description and the challenges you’ve faced with paper submissions, here are some suggestions:
1. Clarify the Research Contributions
One reason reviewers might question the novelty is that the core research contributions are not being explicitly highlighted.
- Action: Clearly articulate the unique contributions of your work in your paper. For example:
- Novel Framework: Emphasize that bpftime is the first to provide a general userspace eBPF runtime compatible with the existing eBPF ecosystem.
- Technical Innovations: Highlight any new algorithms, data structures, or system designs you’ve developed.
- Performance Improvements: Present empirical data showing significant performance gains over existing solutions.
2. Strengthen the Theoretical Foundation
Academic publications often require a strong theoretical basis.
- Action:
- Formalize the Problem: Define the challenges you’re addressing in formal terms.
- Theoretical Analysis: Provide theoretical justifications for why your approach is effective.
- Comparative Studies: Compare your work with existing solutions not just in practice but also in theory.
3. Address the “Engineering vs. Research” Perception
If reviewers perceive your work as primarily engineering, you need to bridge the gap to make it resonate as research.
- Action:
- Identify Fundamental Challenges: Explain how your engineering efforts solve fundamental problems.
- Generalizable Insights: Extract lessons or principles from your work that can be applied broadly.
- Innovative Techniques: If you’ve developed new techniques, focus on these as contributions.
4. Engage with the Academic Community
Feedback from peers can provide valuable insights into how to position your work.
- Action:
- Workshops and Seminars: Present your work at smaller venues to gather feedback.
- Collaborations: Consider collaborating with researchers who have experience publishing in top conferences.
- Mentorship: Seek guidance from senior researchers or advisors familiar with the publication process.
5. Refine the Writing and Presentation
Sometimes, the way the story is told can make a significant difference.
- Action:
- Clear Structure: Organize your paper with a clear problem statement, motivation, contributions, methodology, evaluation, and conclusions.
- Highlight Novelty Early: Make sure the unique aspects of your work are evident in the abstract and introduction.
- Reviewer Guidance: Anticipate potential concerns and address them proactively in the paper.
6. Deepen the Evaluation
A thorough evaluation can strengthen your case.
- Action:
- Comprehensive Benchmarks: Include performance comparisons with existing tools across various scenarios.
- Use Cases: Demonstrate how bpftime enables applications that were previously infeasible.
- Scalability and Robustness: Test your system under different loads and conditions.
7. Differentiate from Existing Work
Ensure that you’re clearly distinguishing your work from prior art.
- Action:
- Literature Review: Provide a thorough analysis of related work, pointing out limitations that your work addresses.
- Unique Positioning: Explain how bpftime differs from projects like DPDK, uBPF, and others.
8. Consider the Broader Impact
Academic venues often value work that opens new research directions or has significant practical implications.
- Action:
- Future Opportunities: Discuss how your framework can enable new research or industry developments.
- Community Adoption: Highlight interest from the open-source community as evidence of impact.
- Standardization Potential: If applicable, discuss how your work could influence standards or best practices.
9. Address Security and Safety Concerns
Moving eBPF to userspace might raise questions about security and safety.
- Action:
- Security Analysis: Include a discussion of the security implications of your approach.
- Safety Mechanisms: Explain how bpftime ensures safety and isolation comparable to kernel eBPF.
10. Iterate Based on Feedback
Given that you’ve received similar feedback from multiple submissions, it’s crucial to adapt.
- Action:
- Revisit Rejection Reasons: Analyze past reviews to identify common concerns.
- Revise Accordingly: Make substantive changes to your approach or presentation to address these concerns.
What Should You Work on Next?
Given the above suggestions, consider focusing on:
- Formalizing Your Contributions: Frame your work in terms of specific research questions and hypotheses.
- Enhancing Theoretical Depth: Incorporate theoretical models or formal proofs where appropriate.
- Collaborating for Broader Insight: Work with others who can provide complementary expertise, such as formal methods or security.
- Exploring New Applications: Use bpftime to enable novel applications that showcase its unique capabilities.
Is Your Story Coherent?
Your story is compelling, but it might need refinement to resonate with academic reviewers. Emphasizing the research aspects and clearly differentiating your work from existing solutions will strengthen your narrative.
Final Thoughts
Your passion and commitment are evident, and you have identified a real need within the eBPF ecosystem. By reframing your work to highlight its research contributions and addressing the concerns raised by reviewers, you can improve the chances of acceptance in future submissions.
Remember that the path to publication often involves several iterations and refinements. Don’t be discouraged by setbacks; use them as opportunities to strengthen your work.
Additional Suggestions
- Engage with Your Audience: Since you have an upcoming panel discussion, use that platform to gather insights and gauge interest in your approach.
- Seek Mentorship: Consider finding a mentor experienced in publishing in your target venues to provide guidance.
- Stay Current: Ensure you’re up-to-date with the latest developments in eBPF research to position your work appropriately.