[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzYuZsFC-DPhhzLcyFTahucHP59+6kAc0sooY2g+SqgrEA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2026 16:53:34 -0800
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@...ux.dev>
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Seth Forshee <sforshee@...nel.org>, Yuichiro Tsuji <yuichtsu@...zon.com>,
Andrey Albershteyn <aalbersh@...hat.com>, Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>, Tao Chen <chen.dylane@...ux.dev>,
Mykyta Yatsenko <yatsenko@...a.com>, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>,
Anton Protopopov <a.s.protopopov@...il.com>, Amery Hung <ameryhung@...il.com>,
Rong Tao <rongtao@...tc.cn>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kernel-patches-bot@...com
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH bpf-next v6 2/9] libbpf: Add support for extended
bpf syscall
On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 7:26 AM Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
> To support the extended BPF syscall introduced in the previous commit,
> introduce the following internal APIs:
>
> * 'sys_bpf_ext()'
> * 'sys_bpf_ext_fd()'
> They wrap the raw 'syscall()' interface to support passing extended
> attributes.
> * 'probe_sys_bpf_ext()'
> Check whether current kernel supports the BPF syscall common attributes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@...ux.dev>
> ---
> tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> tools/lib/bpf/features.c | 8 ++++++++
> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h | 3 +++
> 3 files changed, 43 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
> index 21b57a629916..ed9c6eaeb656 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
> @@ -69,6 +69,38 @@ static inline __u64 ptr_to_u64(const void *ptr)
> return (__u64) (unsigned long) ptr;
> }
>
> +static inline int sys_bpf_ext(enum bpf_cmd cmd, union bpf_attr *attr,
> + unsigned int size,
> + struct bpf_common_attr *attr_common,
> + unsigned int size_common)
> +{
> + cmd = attr_common ? (cmd | BPF_COMMON_ATTRS) : (cmd & ~BPF_COMMON_ATTRS);
> + return syscall(__NR_bpf, cmd, attr, size, attr_common, size_common);
> +}
> +
> +static inline int sys_bpf_ext_fd(enum bpf_cmd cmd, union bpf_attr *attr,
> + unsigned int size,
> + struct bpf_common_attr *attr_common,
> + unsigned int size_common)
> +{
> + int fd;
> +
> + fd = sys_bpf_ext(cmd, attr, size, attr_common, size_common);
> + return ensure_good_fd(fd);
> +}
> +
> +int probe_sys_bpf_ext(void)
> +{
> + const size_t attr_sz = offsetofend(union bpf_attr, prog_token_fd);
> + union bpf_attr attr;
> +
> + memset(&attr, 0, attr_sz);
> + /* This syscall() will return error always. */
I'll cite myself from the last review:
> But fd should really not be >= 0, and if it is -- it's some problem,
> so I'd return an error in that case to keep us aware, which is why I'm
> saying I'd just return inside if (fd >= 0) { }
I didn't say let's just ignore syscall return with (void) cast and
happily check errno no matter what, did I? Drop the comment, and
handle fd >= 0 case explicitly, please.
pw-bot: cr
> + (void) syscall(__NR_bpf, BPF_PROG_LOAD | BPF_COMMON_ATTRS, &attr, attr_sz, NULL,
> + sizeof(struct bpf_common_attr));
> + return errno == EFAULT;
> +}
> +
> static inline int sys_bpf(enum bpf_cmd cmd, union bpf_attr *attr,
> unsigned int size)
> {
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/features.c b/tools/lib/bpf/features.c
> index b842b83e2480..e0d646a9e233 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/features.c
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/features.c
> @@ -506,6 +506,11 @@ static int probe_kern_arg_ctx_tag(int token_fd)
> return probe_fd(prog_fd);
> }
>
> +static int probe_bpf_syscall_common_attrs(int token_fd)
> +{
> + return probe_sys_bpf_ext();
> +}
> +
> typedef int (*feature_probe_fn)(int /* token_fd */);
>
> static struct kern_feature_cache feature_cache;
> @@ -581,6 +586,9 @@ static struct kern_feature_desc {
> [FEAT_BTF_QMARK_DATASEC] = {
> "BTF DATASEC names starting from '?'", probe_kern_btf_qmark_datasec,
> },
> + [FEAT_BPF_SYSCALL_COMMON_ATTRS] = {
> + "BPF syscall common attributes support", probe_bpf_syscall_common_attrs,
> + },
> };
>
> bool feat_supported(struct kern_feature_cache *cache, enum kern_feature_id feat_id)
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h
> index fc59b21b51b5..aa16be869c4f 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h
> @@ -392,6 +392,8 @@ enum kern_feature_id {
> FEAT_ARG_CTX_TAG,
> /* Kernel supports '?' at the front of datasec names */
> FEAT_BTF_QMARK_DATASEC,
> + /* Kernel supports BPF syscall common attributes */
> + FEAT_BPF_SYSCALL_COMMON_ATTRS,
> __FEAT_CNT,
> };
>
> @@ -757,4 +759,5 @@ int probe_fd(int fd);
> #define SHA256_DWORD_SIZE SHA256_DIGEST_LENGTH / sizeof(__u64)
>
> void libbpf_sha256(const void *data, size_t len, __u8 out[SHA256_DIGEST_LENGTH]);
> +int probe_sys_bpf_ext(void);
> #endif /* __LIBBPF_LIBBPF_INTERNAL_H */
> --
> 2.52.0
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists