Re: [PATCHv5 bpf-next 10/28] bpf: Add multi tracing attach types

[Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 08:22:39PM +0000, bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > index 552bc5d9afbd..5f814e7101cf 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > @@ -1154,6 +1154,8 @@ enum bpf_attach_type {
> >  	BPF_TRACE_KPROBE_SESSION,
> >  	BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_SESSION,
> >  	BPF_TRACE_FSESSION,
> > +	BPF_TRACE_FENTRY_MULTI,
> > +	BPF_TRACE_FEXIT_MULTI,
> >  	__MAX_BPF_ATTACH_TYPE
> >  };
> 
> In the RFC version posted on February 4, 2026, Leon Hwang asked whether
> BPF_TRACE_FSESSION_MULTI should be added alongside BPF_TRACE_FENTRY_MULTI
> and BPF_TRACE_FEXIT_MULTI for consistency, since BPF_TRACE_FSESSION exists
> and is handled similarly to FENTRY/FEXIT.
> 
> Reference:
> https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/3015991d-2e9b-4bf4-9c17-26e00b5d5926@linux.dev/
> 
> You acknowledged this with "good catch, will add it" in the same thread:
> https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/aYM-jeV50WaVik1b@krava/
> 
> However, BPF_TRACE_FSESSION_MULTI was not added in any subsequent version
> through v5. Should BPF_TRACE_FSESSION_MULTI be included here for API
> consistency?
>

I think the comment was to introduce the support for fsession,
not to add it to this specific patch

and BPF_TRACE_FSESSION_MULTI is introduced in:
  bpf: Add support for tracing_multi link session

jirka

> 
> ---
> AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
> See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md
> 
> CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/24583317711