linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v8 04/11] bpf: support fsession for bpf_session_is

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAADnVQJTc3qegim-hyzaurnCX-8pRQWoj+r9+0jgBQ-WmpLHuw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2026 22:05:16 -0800
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Menglong Dong <menglong.dong@...ux.dev>
Cc: Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@...il.com>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, 
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, 
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Eduard <eddyz87@...il.com>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, 
	Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, 
	KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, 
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, 
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, jiang.biao@...ux.dev, 
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, 
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v8 04/11] bpf: support fsession for bpf_session_is_return

On Fri, Jan 9, 2026 at 7:38 PM Menglong Dong <menglong.dong@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Remove the first hunk and make the 2nd a comment instead of a real function?
>
> Agree. So it will be:
>
> +static bool bpf_fsession_is_return(void *ctx)
> +{
> +       /* This helper call is implemented and inlined by the verifier, and the logic is:
> +         *   return !!(((u64 *)ctx)[-1] & (1 << BPF_TRAMP_M_IS_RETURN));
> +         */
> +        return false;
> +}

No need to define an empty function.
A comment next to 'inline-by-bpf-asm' part explaining what is going on
will be enough.