netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v8 05/11] bpf: support fsession for bpf_session

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: <2401703.ElGaqSPkdT@7950hx>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2026 11:38:11 +0800
From: Menglong Dong <menglong.dong@...ux.dev>
To: Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@...il.com>,
 Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
 Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
 Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Eduard <eddyz87@...il.com>,
 Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>,
 John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
 Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
 Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, jiang.biao@...ux.dev,
 Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
 X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
 bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
 LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject:
 Re: [PATCH bpf-next v8 05/11] bpf: support fsession for bpf_session_cookie

On 2026/1/10 10:42, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 6:26 PM Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > +u64 *bpf_fsession_cookie(void *ctx)
> > +{
> > +       /* This helper call is inlined by verifier. */
> > +       u64 off = (((u64 *)ctx)[-1] >> BPF_TRAMP_M_COOKIE) & 0xFF;
> > +
> > +       return &((u64 *)ctx)[-off];
> > +}
> 
> Same question... this can be a comment.
> For some of the helpers earlier we kept C functions to make
> things work on architectures where JIT is not available,
> but kfuncs require JIT, so for kfuncs there is no fallback necessary.

Yeah, it make sense.

> 
>