linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v7 2/9] libbpf: Add support for extended bpf syscall

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: <CAADnVQ+HJkOikzE3KPhOkd1KNugs7=1dZKY1mfog-ez8noyrDA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2026 20:12:42 -0800
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@...ux.dev>
Cc: bpf <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>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, 
	"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-patches-bot@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v7 2/9] libbpf: Add support for extended bpf syscall

On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 8:07 PM Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 23/1/26 11:55, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 7:25 PM Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@...ux.dev> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> +static int probe_bpf_syscall_common_attrs(int token_fd)
> >> +{
> >> +       int ret;
> >> +
> >> +       ret = probe_sys_bpf_ext();
> >> +       return ret > 0;
> >> +}
> >
> > When you look at the above, what thoughts come to mind?
> >
> > ... and please don't use ai for answers.
>
> My initial thought was whether probe_fd() is needed here to handle and
> close a returned fd, since the return value of probe_sys_bpf_ext() isn’t
> obvious from the call site.

Fair enough, but then collapse it into one helper if FD is a concern.
My question was about stylistic/taste preferences.