linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v6 1/2] bpf, x86: inline bpf_get_current_task() for x86

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: <CAEf4BzbER285+j+DLsRdTyw1z_f=6-DYW8k88ehqi_mNW4Kv_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 22:35:44 -0800
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: Menglong Dong <menglong.dong@...ux.dev>, Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@...il.com>, 
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Eduard <eddyz87@...il.com>, 
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, 
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, 
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, 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>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, 
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, 
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, 
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v6 1/2] bpf, x86: inline bpf_get_current_task()
 for x86_64

On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 8:46 PM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 8:12 PM Andrii Nakryiko
> <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Looking at the patch again. I think it's fine as-is.
> > > fastcall can be a follow up.
> >
> > Yeah, it's fine as is. But it still seems like
>
> Thanks!
>
> > verifier_inlines_helper_call() is an unnecessary extra hop we can
> > remove (even if it has to stay arch-specific).
>
> I'm not sure that we can, since it's used in two places:
> get_call_summary():
>                 cs->fastcall = fn->allow_fastcall &&
>                                (verifier_inlines_helper_call(env, call->imm) ||
>                                 bpf_jit_inlines_helper_call(call->imm));

well then, just ignore me :)