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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <65231eeb-1f00-4af2-9234-a290ea3f6585@meta.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2026 10:35:12 -0500
From: Chris Mason <clm@...a.com>
To: bot+bpf-ci@...nel.org, leon.hwang@...ux.dev, 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 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.

-chris