Summary:
Please enable CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF=y in future Unraid kernels (currently missing in 6.12.24 and above).
This single flag generates /sys/kernel/btf/vmlinux, unlocking full CO-RE eBPF functionality.
The final goal is to get bpftune running on Unraid and widen compatibility for applications in need of full eBPF functionality.

Benefits:

• Enables modern tools like bpftune (Oracle's BPF auto-tuner) in "full mode" for automatic optimization of TCP buffers, congestion control (BBR), IP frag limits, and neighbor tables.¹

• Higher network throughput: Dynamically scales buffers based on real workload (e.g., +20-50% on git clones/large downloads via adaptive tcp_rmem/tcp_wmem).

• Zero config: No manual sysctl tuning needed; bpftune observes + adjusts safely, backing off under memory pressure.

• Future-proofs Unraid for eBPF apps (CrowdStrike, monitoring, auto-tuning).²
  

Impact: Minimal (just one config flag); all other BPF features already enabled since 6.10.³
Tested: bpftune compiles/runs in legacy mode (-L), but full fentry/fexit + per-netns tuning requires BTF.

Reference:

1. https://github.com/oracle/bpftune

2. https://forums.unraid.net/topic/137188-kernel-enable-config_debug_info_btf-needed-for-crowdstrike-agent/

3. https://docs.unraid.net/unraid-os/release-notes/6.10.0/

If you're interested, please upvote using the link below:

On 3/31/2026 at 10:52 PM, EDACerton said:

Upvote here: https://product.unraid.net/p/kernel-enable-config_debug_info_btf-y-for-full-ebpf-btf-support?b=unraid-os-feature-requests

Edited April 21Apr 21 by p0p
Added citation with voting link

9 hours ago, p0p said:

Impact: Minimal (just one config flag); all other BPF features already enabled since 6.10.³

That's not entirely true, since if you enable this option, the Kernel modules would blow up in size (almost double the size IIRC) and therefore that would mean much bigger releases.

IIRC this was the main reason why it wasn't enabled yet.

Would you mind to tell me the impact in size, for the users and for the system? (Maybe build a Kernel Testbuild with your build tools¹)
Is there any feelable / measurable impact in terms of performance (of course we have a german word for that:"Schwuppdizität")?
Are there trade-offs except for disk space/download usage?

How could the Unraid System benefit from enabling the full eBPF functionality and therefore the userbase?

I'm very curious about the outcome and here to learn 🙂

1. https://github.com/ich777/unraid_kernel

On 12/19/2025 at 2:18 PM, p0p said:

Would you mind to tell me the impact in size, for the users and for the system? (Maybe build a Kernel Testbuild with your build tools¹)

The size of the modules? I think we are talking about a 100% increase so to speak double the size or even more.
I have already done that in the past to test that since you are not the first one who is requesting this feature.

On 12/19/2025 at 2:18 PM, p0p said:

Is there any feelable / measurable impact in terms of performance (of course we have a german word for that:"Schwuppdizität")?

Usually not (I also speak German but never heard of "Schwuppdizität" :P ).

On 12/19/2025 at 2:18 PM, p0p said:

Are there trade-offs except for disk space/download usage?

I don't think so, but please remember having bigger modules does mean a significant bigger Unraid release, more RAM usage and so on.

On 12/19/2025 at 2:18 PM, p0p said:

How could the Unraid System benefit from enabling the full eBPF functionality and therefore the userbase?

I don't understand that question TBH, sure some users would benefit from that since you would be able to run Falcon and other monitoring software (which is usually paid only).

On 12/19/2025 at 2:18 PM, p0p said:

I'm very curious about the outcome and here to learn 🙂

Since this is a significant change and also will possibly change the hardware requirements from Unraid, since more space on the flash drive is necessary and to an extent also more RAM is required.

As said, I think this feature is planned but I don't have an ETA for when it's implemented.

Hey @ich777 vielen Dank für deine ausführliche Antwort / many thanks for your detailed answer :)

Sorry for the late reply... I was battling with mental health issue over the new year.

On 12/22/2025 at 9:11 AM, ich777 said:

I have already done that in the past to test that since you are not the first one who is requesting this feature.

As it's requested before:
Would it be possible to offer two official Unraid kernel branches, that user can switch from the Update Manager?

1. "Standard" one is without and

2. "Advanced" is with eBPF.

On 12/22/2025 at 9:11 AM, ich777 said:

Schwuppdizität

If you're interested in the "lore", check out this article from the officials of IT Niedersachsen / IT Lower Saxony. :D

On 12/22/2025 at 9:11 AM, ich777 said:

I don't think so, but please remember having bigger modules does mean a significant bigger Unraid release, more RAM usage and so on.

Huh, basically true. Do you have statistics about

• System Specs of the Unraid User base

• how many (percentage of) users run Unraid on a toaster a budget system that maybe impacted by this change?

As for RAM usage, would it be possible to load the modules dynamically into the RAM, if they're used?

In my believes, storage isn't really a problem anymore.

On 12/22/2025 at 9:11 AM, ich777 said:

I don't understand that question TBH, sure some users would benefit from that since you would be able to run Falcon and other monitoring software (which is usually paid only).

For example

• faster internal networking (Docker <-> System, network bridges,...)

• faster external networking (SMB, NFS,...)

• Shares I/O speed

• Balanced CPU load due to autohandling (network) packages/load

On 12/22/2025 at 9:11 AM, ich777 said:

Since this is a significant change and also will possibly change the hardware requirements from Unraid, since more space on the flash drive is necessary and to an extent also more RAM is required.

As Unraid steadily seems to evolve to a next generation and with the upcoming system on the disc instead of an external flash drive...

Wouldn't it be a good idea to take the plunge?

57 minutes ago, p0p said:

Sorry for the late reply... I was battling with mental health issue over the new year.

Hope you are feeling better now.

57 minutes ago, p0p said:

Would it be possible to offer two official Unraid kernel branches, that user can switch from the Update Manager?

Issue with that is that it is not designed for that, however I'm the wrong person to ask this question, I don't develop for Unraid actively anymore.

58 minutes ago, p0p said:

Do you have statistics about

I don't have those but you I can assume, from the different forum posts here, a lot of them running Unraid on a pretty low spec hardware to save energy and so on...

59 minutes ago, p0p said:

In my believes, storage isn't really a problem anymore.

Tha, don't say that too early with the DRAM shortage... xD

1 hour ago, p0p said:

Wouldn't it be a good idea to take the plunge?

Again, I'm the wrong person to ask. Sorry but I assume that Limetech staff reads through the posts here in the Feature Request forums, so no worries, it will be implemented eventually. :)

I will second adding BTF support. (I have a current plugin project that would benefit from it.)

I think the fundamental concern here -- the kernel growing in size -- is due to a misconception with the parameter that's needed.

CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO=y results in the kernel including full debug information. This is very large, but not what is needed/being requested.

CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF=y builds the kernel with a compact set of metadata for eBPF. The impact of this should be negligible.

On 1/30/2026 at 4:28 AM, EDACerton said:

I have a current plugin project that would benefit from it.

Would you please share which plugin project would benefit from it? If there's an further usecase, maybe this request is getting more present to the devs. :)

On 3/19/2026 at 2:15 AM, p0p said:

Would you please share which plugin project would benefit from it? If there's an further usecase, maybe this request is getting more present to the devs. :)

Join + to this topic.
I'm also disappointed that this option is missing. I've been a fan of EBPF for many years, and now I've discovered it's missing from my Unraid. I wouldn't want to run a virtual machine just for this feature :(

1. Coroot monitoring - https://github.com/coroot/coroot

coroot agent note use ebpf for trace / observability
2. Cillium in k3s docker image

cillium use ebpf.

I'm here to also ask for this functionality. Is there a way to push this out without it affecting all modules? (I know basic question, just really first time posting a request/+1 vote.) I'm more familiar with MantisNet's usage of eBPF.

Upvote here: https://product.unraid.net/p/kernel-enable-config_debug_info_btf-y-for-full-ebpf-btf-support?b=unraid-os-feature-requests

Thanks, voted!

I need this to support Falco

Falco

Deploy as a container

Learn how to run and manage Falco as a container

Please add it. Unraid security options are extremely limited

Edited April 14Apr 14 by L0rdRaiden