Compatibility matrix for Retina's eBPF programs across kernels — useful?

Hi Retina team,

I maintain [bpfcompat](https://github.com/Kernel-Guard/bpfcompat) (Apache-2.0): it boots real distro kernels in disposable QEMU/KVM VMs, load/attach-validates a compiled `.bpf.o`, and reports a per-kernel pass/fail matrix with classified failure reasons (missing BTF, CO-RE relocation, unsupported map/program/attach type).

Retina's eBPF plugins (conntrack, dropreason, dns, …) run across AKS and a wide range of other distros/kernels — exactly the compatibility surface bpfcompat targets. I'd be happy to run Retina's compiled objects across a kernel spread and share the matrix as complementary evidence / a possible non-blocking CI lane.

Context: a [Falco modern_bpf reference matrix](https://github.com/Kernel-Guard/bpfcompat/blob/main/docs/case-study-falco-modern-bpf.md) and an [enterprise/backported-kernel matrix](https://github.com/Kernel-Guard/bpfcompat/blob/main/docs/case-study-enterprise-kernels.md) (RHEL 8/9/10, Oracle UEK, Amazon Linux 2 incl. the no-BTF 4.14, openSUSE — 14/14). [Live demo](https://bpfcompat.kernelguard.net).

Would a published per-kernel matrix for the plugins (or a CI lane that gates on it) be useful? Happy to put one together.

_Independent test of a public project; not affiliated with or endorsed by Microsoft/Retina._

Begin with Retina's conntrack, dropreason, and dns compiled .bpf.o outputs and bpfcompat's two linked case studies. Done is defined by whether the team accepts a published per-kernel matrix or a non-blocking CI lane, with the supported kernel scope and pass/fail criteria recorded.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.