To support the extended BPF syscall introduced in the previous commit,
introduce the following internal APIs:
* 'sys_bpf_ext()'
* 'sys_bpf_ext_fd()'
They wrap the raw 'syscall()' interface to support passing extended
attributes.
* 'probe_sys_bpf_ext()'
Check whether current kernel supports the extended attributes.
Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>
---
tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
tools/lib/bpf/features.c | 8 ++++++++
tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h | 3 +++
3 files changed, 45 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
index 21b57a629916..d44e667aaf02 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
@@ -69,6 +69,40 @@ static inline __u64 ptr_to_u64(const void *ptr)
return (__u64) (unsigned long) ptr;
}
+static inline int sys_bpf_ext(enum bpf_cmd cmd, union bpf_attr *attr,
+ unsigned int size,
+ struct bpf_common_attr *common_attr,
+ unsigned int size_common)
+{
+ cmd = common_attr ? (cmd | BPF_COMMON_ATTRS) : (cmd & ~BPF_COMMON_ATTRS);
+ return syscall(__NR_bpf, cmd, attr, size, common_attr, size_common);
+}
+
+static inline int sys_bpf_ext_fd(enum bpf_cmd cmd, union bpf_attr *attr,
+ unsigned int size,
+ struct bpf_common_attr *common_attr,
+ unsigned int size_common)
+{
+ int fd;
+
+ fd = sys_bpf_ext(cmd, attr, size, common_attr, size_common);
+ return ensure_good_fd(fd);
+}
+
+int probe_sys_bpf_ext(void)
+{
+ const size_t attr_sz = offsetofend(union bpf_attr, prog_token_fd);
+ union bpf_attr attr;
+ int fd;
+
+ memset(&attr, 0, attr_sz);
+ fd = syscall(__NR_bpf, BPF_PROG_LOAD | BPF_COMMON_ATTRS, &attr, attr_sz, NULL,
+ sizeof(struct bpf_common_attr));
+ if (fd >= 0)
+ close(fd);
+ return errno == EFAULT;
+}
+
static inline int sys_bpf(enum bpf_cmd cmd, union bpf_attr *attr,
unsigned int size)
{
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/features.c b/tools/lib/bpf/features.c
index b842b83e2480..d786a815f1ae 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/features.c
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/features.c
@@ -506,6 +506,11 @@ static int probe_kern_arg_ctx_tag(int token_fd)
return probe_fd(prog_fd);
}
+static int probe_kern_extended_syscall(int token_fd)
+{
+ return probe_sys_bpf_ext();
+}
+
typedef int (*feature_probe_fn)(int /* token_fd */);
static struct kern_feature_cache feature_cache;
@@ -581,6 +586,9 @@ static struct kern_feature_desc {
[FEAT_BTF_QMARK_DATASEC] = {
"BTF DATASEC names starting from '?'", probe_kern_btf_qmark_datasec,
},
+ [FEAT_EXTENDED_SYSCALL] = {
+ "Kernel supports extended syscall", probe_kern_extended_syscall,
+ },
};
bool feat_supported(struct kern_feature_cache *cache, enum kern_feature_id feat_id)
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h
index fc59b21b51b5..e2a6ef4b45ae 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h
@@ -392,6 +392,8 @@ enum kern_feature_id {
FEAT_ARG_CTX_TAG,
/* Kernel supports '?' at the front of datasec names */
FEAT_BTF_QMARK_DATASEC,
+ /* Kernel supports extended syscall */
+ FEAT_EXTENDED_SYSCALL,
__FEAT_CNT,
};
@@ -757,4 +759,5 @@ int probe_fd(int fd);
#define SHA256_DWORD_SIZE SHA256_DIGEST_LENGTH / sizeof(__u64)
void libbpf_sha256(const void *data, size_t len, __u8 out[SHA256_DIGEST_LENGTH]);
+int probe_sys_bpf_ext(void);
#endif /* __LIBBPF_LIBBPF_INTERNAL_H */
--
2.52.0On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 6:58 AM Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev> wrote:
>
> To support the extended BPF syscall introduced in the previous commit,
> introduce the following internal APIs:
>
> * 'sys_bpf_ext()'
> * 'sys_bpf_ext_fd()'
> They wrap the raw 'syscall()' interface to support passing extended
> attributes.
> * 'probe_sys_bpf_ext()'
> Check whether current kernel supports the extended attributes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>
> ---
> tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> tools/lib/bpf/features.c | 8 ++++++++
> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h | 3 +++
> 3 files changed, 45 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
> index 21b57a629916..d44e667aaf02 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
> @@ -69,6 +69,40 @@ static inline __u64 ptr_to_u64(const void *ptr)
> return (__u64) (unsigned long) ptr;
> }
>
> +static inline int sys_bpf_ext(enum bpf_cmd cmd, union bpf_attr *attr,
> + unsigned int size,
> + struct bpf_common_attr *common_attr,
nit: kernel uses consistent attr_common/size_common pattern, but here
you are inverting attr_common -> common_attr, let's not?
> + unsigned int size_common)
> +{
> + cmd = common_attr ? (cmd | BPF_COMMON_ATTRS) : (cmd & ~BPF_COMMON_ATTRS);
> + return syscall(__NR_bpf, cmd, attr, size, common_attr, size_common);
> +}
> +
> +static inline int sys_bpf_ext_fd(enum bpf_cmd cmd, union bpf_attr *attr,
> + unsigned int size,
> + struct bpf_common_attr *common_attr,
> + unsigned int size_common)
> +{
> + int fd;
> +
> + fd = sys_bpf_ext(cmd, attr, size, common_attr, size_common);
> + return ensure_good_fd(fd);
> +}
> +
> +int probe_sys_bpf_ext(void)
> +{
> + const size_t attr_sz = offsetofend(union bpf_attr, prog_token_fd);
> + union bpf_attr attr;
> + int fd;
> +
> + memset(&attr, 0, attr_sz);
> + fd = syscall(__NR_bpf, BPF_PROG_LOAD | BPF_COMMON_ATTRS, &attr, attr_sz, NULL,
> + sizeof(struct bpf_common_attr));
> + if (fd >= 0)
> + close(fd);
hm... close can change errno, this is fragile. If fd >= 0, something
is wrong with our detection, just return error right away?
> + return errno == EFAULT;
> +}
> +
> static inline int sys_bpf(enum bpf_cmd cmd, union bpf_attr *attr,
> unsigned int size)
> {
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/features.c b/tools/lib/bpf/features.c
> index b842b83e2480..d786a815f1ae 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/features.c
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/features.c
> @@ -506,6 +506,11 @@ static int probe_kern_arg_ctx_tag(int token_fd)
> return probe_fd(prog_fd);
> }
>
> +static int probe_kern_extended_syscall(int token_fd)
> +{
> + return probe_sys_bpf_ext();
> +}
> +
> typedef int (*feature_probe_fn)(int /* token_fd */);
>
> static struct kern_feature_cache feature_cache;
> @@ -581,6 +586,9 @@ static struct kern_feature_desc {
> [FEAT_BTF_QMARK_DATASEC] = {
> "BTF DATASEC names starting from '?'", probe_kern_btf_qmark_datasec,
> },
> + [FEAT_EXTENDED_SYSCALL] = {
> + "Kernel supports extended syscall", probe_kern_extended_syscall,
"extended syscall" is a bit vague... We specifically detect common
attrs support, maybe say that?
> + },
> };
>
> bool feat_supported(struct kern_feature_cache *cache, enum kern_feature_id feat_id)
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h
> index fc59b21b51b5..e2a6ef4b45ae 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h
> @@ -392,6 +392,8 @@ enum kern_feature_id {
> FEAT_ARG_CTX_TAG,
> /* Kernel supports '?' at the front of datasec names */
> FEAT_BTF_QMARK_DATASEC,
> + /* Kernel supports extended syscall */
> + FEAT_EXTENDED_SYSCALL,
FEAT_BPF_COMMON_ATTRS ?
> __FEAT_CNT,
> };
>
> @@ -757,4 +759,5 @@ int probe_fd(int fd);
> #define SHA256_DWORD_SIZE SHA256_DIGEST_LENGTH / sizeof(__u64)
>
> void libbpf_sha256(const void *data, size_t len, __u8 out[SHA256_DIGEST_LENGTH]);
> +int probe_sys_bpf_ext(void);
> #endif /* __LIBBPF_LIBBPF_INTERNAL_H */
> --
> 2.52.0
>
On 2026/1/16 08:42, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 6:58 AM Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev> wrote:
>>
>> To support the extended BPF syscall introduced in the previous commit,
>> introduce the following internal APIs:
>>
>> * 'sys_bpf_ext()'
>> * 'sys_bpf_ext_fd()'
>> They wrap the raw 'syscall()' interface to support passing extended
>> attributes.
>> * 'probe_sys_bpf_ext()'
>> Check whether current kernel supports the extended attributes.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>
>> ---
>> tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> tools/lib/bpf/features.c | 8 ++++++++
>> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h | 3 +++
>> 3 files changed, 45 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
>> index 21b57a629916..d44e667aaf02 100644
>> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
>> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
>> @@ -69,6 +69,40 @@ static inline __u64 ptr_to_u64(const void *ptr)
>> return (__u64) (unsigned long) ptr;
>> }
>>
>> +static inline int sys_bpf_ext(enum bpf_cmd cmd, union bpf_attr *attr,
>> + unsigned int size,
>> + struct bpf_common_attr *common_attr,
>
> nit: kernel uses consistent attr_common/size_common pattern, but here
> you are inverting attr_common -> common_attr, let's not?
>
Ack.
I'll keep the same pattern.
>> + unsigned int size_common)
>> +{
>> + cmd = common_attr ? (cmd | BPF_COMMON_ATTRS) : (cmd & ~BPF_COMMON_ATTRS);
>> + return syscall(__NR_bpf, cmd, attr, size, common_attr, size_common);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline int sys_bpf_ext_fd(enum bpf_cmd cmd, union bpf_attr *attr,
>> + unsigned int size,
>> + struct bpf_common_attr *common_attr,
>> + unsigned int size_common)
>> +{
>> + int fd;
>> +
>> + fd = sys_bpf_ext(cmd, attr, size, common_attr, size_common);
>> + return ensure_good_fd(fd);
>> +}
>> +
>> +int probe_sys_bpf_ext(void)
>> +{
>> + const size_t attr_sz = offsetofend(union bpf_attr, prog_token_fd);
>> + union bpf_attr attr;
>> + int fd;
>> +
>> + memset(&attr, 0, attr_sz);
>> + fd = syscall(__NR_bpf, BPF_PROG_LOAD | BPF_COMMON_ATTRS, &attr, attr_sz, NULL,
>> + sizeof(struct bpf_common_attr));
>> + if (fd >= 0)
>> + close(fd);
>
> hm... close can change errno, this is fragile. If fd >= 0, something
> is wrong with our detection, just return error right away?
>
How about capture errno before closing?
err = errno;
if (fd >= 0)
close(fd);
return err = EFAULT;
Then, we can wrap all details in probe_sys_bpf_ext().
>> + return errno == EFAULT;
>> +}
>> +
>> static inline int sys_bpf(enum bpf_cmd cmd, union bpf_attr *attr,
>> unsigned int size)
>> {
>> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/features.c b/tools/lib/bpf/features.c
>> index b842b83e2480..d786a815f1ae 100644
>> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/features.c
>> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/features.c
>> @@ -506,6 +506,11 @@ static int probe_kern_arg_ctx_tag(int token_fd)
>> return probe_fd(prog_fd);
>> }
>>
>> +static int probe_kern_extended_syscall(int token_fd)
>> +{
>> + return probe_sys_bpf_ext();
>> +}
>> +
>> typedef int (*feature_probe_fn)(int /* token_fd */);
>>
>> static struct kern_feature_cache feature_cache;
>> @@ -581,6 +586,9 @@ static struct kern_feature_desc {
>> [FEAT_BTF_QMARK_DATASEC] = {
>> "BTF DATASEC names starting from '?'", probe_kern_btf_qmark_datasec,
>> },
>> + [FEAT_EXTENDED_SYSCALL] = {
>> + "Kernel supports extended syscall", probe_kern_extended_syscall,
>
> "extended syscall" is a bit vague... We specifically detect common
> attrs support, maybe say that?
>
Ack.
I'll update it to "BPF syscall common attributes support."
>> + },
>> };
>>
>> bool feat_supported(struct kern_feature_cache *cache, enum kern_feature_id feat_id)
>> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h
>> index fc59b21b51b5..e2a6ef4b45ae 100644
>> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h
>> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h
>> @@ -392,6 +392,8 @@ enum kern_feature_id {
>> FEAT_ARG_CTX_TAG,
>> /* Kernel supports '?' at the front of datasec names */
>> FEAT_BTF_QMARK_DATASEC,
>> + /* Kernel supports extended syscall */
>> + FEAT_EXTENDED_SYSCALL,
>
> FEAT_BPF_COMMON_ATTRS ?
>
FEAT_BPF_SYSCALL_COMMON_ATTRS seems more accurate.
Thanks,
Leon
>> __FEAT_CNT,
>> };
>>
>> @@ -757,4 +759,5 @@ int probe_fd(int fd);
>> #define SHA256_DWORD_SIZE SHA256_DIGEST_LENGTH / sizeof(__u64)
>>
>> void libbpf_sha256(const void *data, size_t len, __u8 out[SHA256_DIGEST_LENGTH]);
>> +int probe_sys_bpf_ext(void);
>> #endif /* __LIBBPF_LIBBPF_INTERNAL_H */
>> --
>> 2.52.0
>>
On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 5:58 AM Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2026/1/16 08:42, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 6:58 AM Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev> wrote:
> >>
> >> To support the extended BPF syscall introduced in the previous commit,
> >> introduce the following internal APIs:
> >>
> >> * 'sys_bpf_ext()'
> >> * 'sys_bpf_ext_fd()'
> >> They wrap the raw 'syscall()' interface to support passing extended
> >> attributes.
> >> * 'probe_sys_bpf_ext()'
> >> Check whether current kernel supports the extended attributes.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>
> >> ---
> >> tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> tools/lib/bpf/features.c | 8 ++++++++
> >> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h | 3 +++
> >> 3 files changed, 45 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
> >> index 21b57a629916..d44e667aaf02 100644
> >> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
> >> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
> >> @@ -69,6 +69,40 @@ static inline __u64 ptr_to_u64(const void *ptr)
> >> return (__u64) (unsigned long) ptr;
> >> }
> >>
> >> +static inline int sys_bpf_ext(enum bpf_cmd cmd, union bpf_attr *attr,
> >> + unsigned int size,
> >> + struct bpf_common_attr *common_attr,
> >
> > nit: kernel uses consistent attr_common/size_common pattern, but here
> > you are inverting attr_common -> common_attr, let's not?
> >
>
> Ack.
>
> I'll keep the same pattern.
>
> >> + unsigned int size_common)
> >> +{
> >> + cmd = common_attr ? (cmd | BPF_COMMON_ATTRS) : (cmd & ~BPF_COMMON_ATTRS);
> >> + return syscall(__NR_bpf, cmd, attr, size, common_attr, size_common);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static inline int sys_bpf_ext_fd(enum bpf_cmd cmd, union bpf_attr *attr,
> >> + unsigned int size,
> >> + struct bpf_common_attr *common_attr,
> >> + unsigned int size_common)
> >> +{
> >> + int fd;
> >> +
> >> + fd = sys_bpf_ext(cmd, attr, size, common_attr, size_common);
> >> + return ensure_good_fd(fd);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +int probe_sys_bpf_ext(void)
> >> +{
> >> + const size_t attr_sz = offsetofend(union bpf_attr, prog_token_fd);
> >> + union bpf_attr attr;
> >> + int fd;
> >> +
> >> + memset(&attr, 0, attr_sz);
> >> + fd = syscall(__NR_bpf, BPF_PROG_LOAD | BPF_COMMON_ATTRS, &attr, attr_sz, NULL,
> >> + sizeof(struct bpf_common_attr));
> >> + if (fd >= 0)
> >> + close(fd);
> >
> > hm... close can change errno, this is fragile. If fd >= 0, something
> > is wrong with our detection, just return error right away?
> >
>
> How about capture errno before closing?
>
> err = errno;
> if (fd >= 0)
> close(fd);
> return err = EFAULT;
not sure what this code is trying to do, but yes, preserving errno is
one way to fix an immediate problem.
But fd should really not be >= 0, and if it is -- it's some problem,
so I'd return an error in that case to keep us aware, which is why I'm
saying I'd just return inside if (fd >= 0) { }
>
> Then, we can wrap all details in probe_sys_bpf_ext().
>
> >> + return errno == EFAULT;
> >> +}
> >> +
[...]
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.