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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <419976da-f296-4418-8dfe-8ad50a9f8cb5@linux.dev>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2026 12:19:11 +0800
From: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@...ux.dev>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
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 23/1/26 12:12, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> 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.

Understood, thanks for the clarification.

I’ll rework it with the stylistic preference in mind.

Thanks,
Leon