linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/3] bpf: Add bpf_arch_supports

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

Message-ID: <4295e99d-8638-4cff-90e2-e1f5c2452b52@linux.dev>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2026 23:40:26 +0800
From: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@...ux.dev>
To: Chris Mason <clm@...a.com>, bot+bpf-ci@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Cc: ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org,
 martin.lau@...ux.dev, eddyz87@...il.com, song@...nel.org,
 yonghong.song@...ux.dev, john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org,
 sdf@...ichev.me, haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org, puranjay@...nel.org,
 xukuohai@...weicloud.com, catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org,
 shuah@...nel.org, menglong8.dong@...il.com,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kernel-patches-bot@...com,
 martin.lau@...nel.org, ihor.solodrai@...ux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/3] bpf: Add bpf_arch_supports_fsession()



On 2026/1/28 23:35, Chris Mason wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/28/26 10:26 AM, bot+bpf-ci@...nel.org wrote:
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>>> index 5a075e06cf..070ba80e39 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>>> @@ -4112,3 +4112,8 @@ bool bpf_jit_supports_timed_may_goto(void)
>>>  {
>>>  	return true;
>>>  }
>>> +
>>> +bool bpf_jit_supports_fsession(void)
>>        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> This is the actual function name in the code.
> 
> Ihor, I think the script parsing review-inline.txt chopped off the
> part of the review where AI was complaining about the commit message?
> 
> commit f636685cc0b05bb758bb58729cc65dde79ac7108
> Author: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@...ux.dev>
> 
> bpf: Add bpf_arch_supports_fsession()
> 
> This commit adds architecture-specific gating for fsession programs,
> returning -EOPNOTSUPP when the architecture does not implement fsession
> support, instead of failing at runtime with -EFAULT.
> 
>>     bpf: Add bpf_arch_supports_fsession()
> 
> The commit subject references bpf_arch_supports_fsession(), but the
> actual function implemented is named bpf_jit_supports_fsession().
> 
>>     Introduce bpf_arch_supports_fsession() to explicitly gate fsession usage
>>     based on architecture support.
> 
> Similarly, the commit body describes bpf_arch_supports_fsession(), while
> the code uses bpf_jit_supports_fsession().
> 
> Should the commit message be updated to match the actual function name?
> The function follows the existing bpf_jit_supports_*() naming convention
> used by similar functions in the codebase.
> 

Correct, in commit message, the function should be
bpf_jit_supports_fsession(), too.

Thanks,
Leon