public inbox for netdev@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Menglong Dong <menglong.dong@linux.dev>
To: Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@gmail.com>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc: ast@kernel.org, andrii@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net,
	martin.lau@linux.dev, eddyz87@gmail.com, song@kernel.org,
	yonghong.song@linux.dev, john.fastabend@gmail.com,
	kpsingh@kernel.org, sdf@fomichev.me, haoluo@google.com,
	jolsa@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, dsahern@kernel.org,
	tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, jiang.biao@linux.dev,
	bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org,
	hpa@zytor.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v9 04/11] bpf: support fsession for bpf_session_is_return
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2026 10:25:31 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9562692.CDJkKcVGEf@7940hx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4BzZBhGfWN3t0_u-1GrOxtjoJUhMk+NqAaZFnFpgB4QskHQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 2026/1/14 09:22 Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> write:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2026 at 6:12 AM Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > If fsession exists, we will use the bit (1 << BPF_TRAMP_M_IS_RETURN) in
> > ctx[-1] to store the "is_return" flag.
> >
> > The logic of bpf_session_is_return() for fsession is implemented in the
> > verifier by inline following code:
> >
> >   bool bpf_session_is_return(void *ctx)
> >   {
> >       return !!(((u64 *)ctx)[-1] & (1 << BPF_TRAMP_M_IS_RETURN));
> 
> this look unnecessarily scary :) !! part is unnecessary because
> non-zero integer will be converted to proper true(1)/false(0) by
> compiler. But I'd just rewrite it in arguably slightly simpler form
> that lays itself to assembly more directly:
> 
> return ((u64 *)ctx[-1] >> BPF_TRAMP_M_IS_RETURN) & 1;

Yeah, the C code in the comment is wrong and not corresponding
to the inline code. I'll update it in the next version.

> 
> >   }
> >
[......]
> >  };
> >
> > +#define BPF_TRAMP_M_NR_ARGS    0
> > +#define BPF_TRAMP_M_IS_RETURN  8
> 
> nit: What does "M" stand for? Macro? Mask? Menglong? ;) Some new
> convention, why?

Ah, I think it stand for Mask. I'm not good at naming, and
this word come to my mind when I want a prefix for the
case ;)

> 
> > +
> >  struct bpf_tramp_links {
> >         struct bpf_tramp_link *links[BPF_MAX_TRAMP_LINKS];
> >         int nr_links;
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > index bfff3f84fd91..1b0292a03186 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > @@ -12374,6 +12374,7 @@ enum special_kfunc_type {
> >         KF_bpf_arena_alloc_pages,
> >         KF_bpf_arena_free_pages,
> >         KF_bpf_arena_reserve_pages,
> > +       KF_bpf_session_is_return,
> >  };
> >
> >  BTF_ID_LIST(special_kfunc_list)
> > @@ -12451,6 +12452,7 @@ BTF_ID(func, bpf_task_work_schedule_resume_impl)
> >  BTF_ID(func, bpf_arena_alloc_pages)
> >  BTF_ID(func, bpf_arena_free_pages)
> >  BTF_ID(func, bpf_arena_reserve_pages)
> > +BTF_ID(func, bpf_session_is_return)
> >
> >  static bool is_task_work_add_kfunc(u32 func_id)
> >  {
> > @@ -12505,7 +12507,8 @@ get_kfunc_ptr_arg_type(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
> >         struct bpf_reg_state *reg = &regs[regno];
> >         bool arg_mem_size = false;
> >
> > -       if (meta->func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_cast_to_kern_ctx])
> > +       if (meta->func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_cast_to_kern_ctx] ||
> > +           meta->func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_session_is_return])
> >                 return KF_ARG_PTR_TO_CTX;
> >
> >         if (argno + 1 < nargs &&
> > @@ -22558,6 +22561,16 @@ static int fixup_kfunc_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn,
> >                    desc->func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rdonly_cast]) {
> >                 insn_buf[0] = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1);
> >                 *cnt = 1;
> > +       } else if (desc->func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_session_is_return] &&
> > +                  env->prog->expected_attach_type == BPF_TRACE_FSESSION) {
> > +               /* implement and inline the bpf_session_is_return() for
> 
> nit: comment style

ACK

> 
> > +                * fsession, and the logic is:
> > +                *   return !!(((u64 *)ctx)[-1] & (1 << BPF_TRAMP_M_IS_RETURN))
> > +                */
> > +               insn_buf[0] = BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, -8);
> > +               insn_buf[1] = BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_0, BPF_TRAMP_M_IS_RETURN);
> > +               insn_buf[2] = BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_0, 1);
> 
> lol, your assembly is simpler than that C expression above, let's keep
> C close to what you actually are doing in assembler

ACK

> 
> > +               *cnt = 3;
> >         }
> >
> >         if (env->insn_aux_data[insn_idx].arg_prog) {
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > index 297dcafb2c55..1fe508d451b7 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > @@ -3334,34 +3334,40 @@ __bpf_kfunc __u64 *bpf_session_cookie(void *ctx)
> >
> >  __bpf_kfunc_end_defs();
> >
> > -BTF_KFUNCS_START(kprobe_multi_kfunc_set_ids)
> > +BTF_KFUNCS_START(session_kfunc_set_ids)
> >  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_session_is_return)
> >  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_session_cookie)
> > -BTF_KFUNCS_END(kprobe_multi_kfunc_set_ids)
> > +BTF_KFUNCS_END(session_kfunc_set_ids)
> >
> > -static int bpf_kprobe_multi_filter(const struct bpf_prog *prog, u32 kfunc_id)
> > +static int bpf_session_filter(const struct bpf_prog *prog, u32 kfunc_id)
> >  {
> > -       if (!btf_id_set8_contains(&kprobe_multi_kfunc_set_ids, kfunc_id))
> > +       if (!btf_id_set8_contains(&session_kfunc_set_ids, kfunc_id))
> >                 return 0;
> >
> > -       if (!is_kprobe_session(prog) && !is_uprobe_session(prog))
> > +       if (!is_kprobe_session(prog) && !is_uprobe_session(prog) &&
> > +           prog->expected_attach_type != BPF_TRACE_FSESSION)
> 
> check both expected_attach_type *and* prog_type, please (and I think
> it would be good to check prog type for kprobe_session and
> uprobe_session as well, because now it's not guaranteed that program
> will be of BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE

OK, it make sense. I'll check the prog_type for all of them.

Thanks!
Menglong Dong

> 
> 
> >                 return -EACCES;
> >
> >         return 0;
> >  }
> >
> > -static const struct btf_kfunc_id_set bpf_kprobe_multi_kfunc_set = {
> > +static const struct btf_kfunc_id_set bpf_session_kfunc_set = {
> >         .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> > -       .set = &kprobe_multi_kfunc_set_ids,
> > -       .filter = bpf_kprobe_multi_filter,
> > +       .set = &session_kfunc_set_ids,
> > +       .filter = bpf_session_filter,
> >  };
> >
> > -static int __init bpf_kprobe_multi_kfuncs_init(void)
> > +static int __init bpf_trace_kfuncs_init(void)
> >  {
> > -       return register_btf_kfunc_id_set(BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE, &bpf_kprobe_multi_kfunc_set);
> > +       int err = 0;
> > +
> > +       err = err ?: register_btf_kfunc_id_set(BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE, &bpf_session_kfunc_set);
> > +       err = err ?: register_btf_kfunc_id_set(BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING, &bpf_session_kfunc_set);
> > +
> > +       return err;
> >  }
> >
> > -late_initcall(bpf_kprobe_multi_kfuncs_init);
> > +late_initcall(bpf_trace_kfuncs_init);
> >
> >  typedef int (*copy_fn_t)(void *dst, const void *src, u32 size, struct task_struct *tsk);
> >
> > --
> > 2.52.0
> >
> 





  reply	other threads:[~2026-01-14  2:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-01-10 14:11 [PATCH bpf-next v9 00/11] bpf: fsession support Menglong Dong
2026-01-10 14:11 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 01/11] bpf: add " Menglong Dong
2026-01-14  1:22   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2026-01-14  2:10     ` Menglong Dong
2026-01-14 18:56       ` Andrii Nakryiko
2026-01-15  2:05         ` Menglong Dong
2026-01-15  8:33         ` Menglong Dong
2026-01-10 14:11 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 02/11] bpf: use last 8-bits for the nr_args in trampoline Menglong Dong
2026-01-14  1:22   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2026-01-14  2:19     ` Menglong Dong
2026-01-14  9:52       ` David Laight
2026-01-10 14:11 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 03/11] bpf: change prototype of bpf_session_{cookie,is_return} Menglong Dong
2026-01-14  1:22   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2026-01-14  2:19     ` Menglong Dong
2026-01-10 14:11 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 04/11] bpf: support fsession for bpf_session_is_return Menglong Dong
2026-01-14  1:22   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2026-01-14  2:25     ` Menglong Dong [this message]
2026-01-10 14:11 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 05/11] bpf: support fsession for bpf_session_cookie Menglong Dong
2026-01-10 14:42   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-01-11  1:54     ` Menglong Dong
2026-01-14  1:22   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2026-01-14  2:33     ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-01-14  2:38       ` Menglong Dong
2026-01-14  2:48     ` Menglong Dong
2026-01-10 14:11 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 06/11] bpf,x86: introduce emit_store_stack_imm64() for trampoline Menglong Dong
2026-01-14  1:22   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2026-01-14  2:31     ` Menglong Dong
2026-01-10 14:11 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 07/11] bpf,x86: add fsession support for x86_64 Menglong Dong
2026-01-14  1:25   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2026-01-14  3:27     ` Menglong Dong
2026-01-14  3:35       ` Menglong Dong
2026-01-14 19:05       ` Andrii Nakryiko
2026-01-15  2:12         ` Menglong Dong
2026-01-10 14:11 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 08/11] libbpf: add fsession support Menglong Dong
2026-01-14  1:24   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2026-01-14  3:27     ` Menglong Dong
2026-01-10 14:11 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 09/11] selftests/bpf: add testcases for fsession Menglong Dong
2026-01-10 14:11 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 10/11] selftests/bpf: add testcases for fsession cookie Menglong Dong
2026-01-10 14:11 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 11/11] selftests/bpf: test fsession mixed with fentry and fexit Menglong Dong
2026-01-14  2:28 ` [PATCH bpf-next v9 00/11] bpf: fsession support Alexei Starovoitov
2026-01-14  2:52   ` Menglong Dong

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=9562692.CDJkKcVGEf@7940hx \
    --to=menglong.dong@linux.dev \
    --cc=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=dsahern@kernel.org \
    --cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --cc=haoluo@google.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=jiang.biao@linux.dev \
    --cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
    --cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
    --cc=menglong8.dong@gmail.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
    --cc=song@kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    --cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox