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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2813099.mvXUDI8C0e@7950hx>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2026 14:16:35 +0800
From: Menglong Dong <menglong.dong@...ux.dev>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
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 2026/1/10 14:05, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> 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.

Yeah, I see. I'll remove the whole part, and do some comment
in the verifier where I inline this function instead.

Thanks!
Menglong Dong

>