fsession programs can currently be loaded on architectures that do not
implement fsession support, which leads to runtime errors instead of a
clean verifier rejection.
For example, running fsession selftests on arm64 before fsession support
is added results in:
test_fsession_basic:PASS:fsession_test__open_and_load 0 nsec
test_fsession_basic:PASS:fsession_attach 0 nsec
check_result:FAIL:test_run_opts err unexpected error: -14 (errno 14)
Introduce bpf_arch_supports_fsession() to explicitly gate fsession usage
based on architecture support. Architectures without fsession support
will now fail program load with -EOPNOTSUPP, allowing selftests to skip
cleanly instead of errors at runtime.
x86 declares fsession support, while the default implementation returns
false.
Fixes: 2d419c44658f ("bpf: add fsession support")
Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>
---
arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 5 +++
include/linux/filter.h | 1 +
kernel/bpf/core.c | 5 +++
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 3 ++
.../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fsession_test.c | 32 ++++++++++++++-----
5 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
index 5a075e06cf45..070ba80e39d7 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)
+{
+ return true;
+}
diff --git a/include/linux/filter.h b/include/linux/filter.h
index fd54fed8f95f..4e1cb4f91f49 100644
--- a/include/linux/filter.h
+++ b/include/linux/filter.h
@@ -1167,6 +1167,7 @@ bool bpf_jit_supports_arena(void);
bool bpf_jit_supports_insn(struct bpf_insn *insn, bool in_arena);
bool bpf_jit_supports_private_stack(void);
bool bpf_jit_supports_timed_may_goto(void);
+bool bpf_jit_supports_fsession(void);
u64 bpf_arch_uaddress_limit(void);
void arch_bpf_stack_walk(bool (*consume_fn)(void *cookie, u64 ip, u64 sp, u64 bp), void *cookie);
u64 arch_bpf_timed_may_goto(void);
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
index e0b8a8a5aaa9..3b1eb632bf7c 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
@@ -3142,6 +3142,11 @@ bool __weak bpf_jit_supports_insn(struct bpf_insn *insn, bool in_arena)
return false;
}
+bool __weak bpf_jit_supports_fsession(void)
+{
+ return false;
+}
+
u64 __weak bpf_arch_uaddress_limit(void)
{
#if defined(CONFIG_64BIT) && defined(CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_NON_OVERLAPPING_ADDRESS_SPACE)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index c2f2650db9fd..6f867ebf78d1 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -24872,6 +24872,9 @@ int bpf_check_attach_target(struct bpf_verifier_log *log,
case BPF_TRACE_FENTRY:
case BPF_TRACE_FEXIT:
case BPF_TRACE_FSESSION:
+ if (prog->expected_attach_type == BPF_TRACE_FSESSION &&
+ !bpf_jit_supports_fsession())
+ return -EOPNOTSUPP;
if (!btf_type_is_func(t)) {
bpf_log(log, "attach_btf_id %u is not a function\n",
btf_id);
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fsession_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fsession_test.c
index 0c4b428e1cee..a299aeb8cc2e 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fsession_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fsession_test.c
@@ -29,8 +29,16 @@ static void test_fsession_basic(void)
struct fsession_test *skel = NULL;
int err;
- skel = fsession_test__open_and_load();
- if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "fsession_test__open_and_load"))
+ skel = fsession_test__open();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "fsession_test__open"))
+ return;
+
+ err = fsession_test__load(skel);
+ if (err == -EOPNOTSUPP) {
+ test__skip();
+ goto cleanup;
+ }
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "fsession_test__load"))
goto cleanup;
err = fsession_test__attach(skel);
@@ -47,8 +55,16 @@ static void test_fsession_reattach(void)
struct fsession_test *skel = NULL;
int err;
- skel = fsession_test__open_and_load();
- if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "fsession_test__open_and_load"))
+ skel = fsession_test__open();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "fsession_test__open"))
+ return;
+
+ err = fsession_test__load(skel);
+ if (err == -EOPNOTSUPP) {
+ test__skip();
+ goto cleanup;
+ }
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "fsession_test__load"))
goto cleanup;
/* first attach */
@@ -94,6 +110,10 @@ static void test_fsession_cookie(void)
bpf_program__set_autoload(skel->progs.test6, false);
err = fsession_test__load(skel);
+ if (err == -EOPNOTSUPP) {
+ test__skip();
+ goto cleanup;
+ }
if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "fsession_test__load"))
goto cleanup;
@@ -111,10 +131,6 @@ static void test_fsession_cookie(void)
void test_fsession_test(void)
{
-#if !defined(__x86_64__)
- test__skip();
- return;
-#endif
if (test__start_subtest("fsession_test"))
test_fsession_basic();
if (test__start_subtest("fsession_reattach"))
--
2.52.0On 2026/1/28 23:01 Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev> write:
> fsession programs can currently be loaded on architectures that do not
> implement fsession support, which leads to runtime errors instead of a
> clean verifier rejection.
>
> For example, running fsession selftests on arm64 before fsession support
> is added results in:
>
> test_fsession_basic:PASS:fsession_test__open_and_load 0 nsec
> test_fsession_basic:PASS:fsession_attach 0 nsec
> check_result:FAIL:test_run_opts err unexpected error: -14 (errno 14)
>
> Introduce bpf_arch_supports_fsession() to explicitly gate fsession usage
> based on architecture support. Architectures without fsession support
> will now fail program load with -EOPNOTSUPP, allowing selftests to skip
> cleanly instead of errors at runtime.
>
> x86 declares fsession support, while the default implementation returns
> false.
>
> Fixes: 2d419c44658f ("bpf: add fsession support")
I were wondering how this problem happen, as I remember that
I added such checking. When I look back, I found that the checking
is lost during v3->v4. I recalled that the AI warned me about this
part, but I thought that checking exists in my mind :/
It seems that we can't ignore the AI's warning easily. It mostly
make sense.
> Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>
> ---
> arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 5 +++
> include/linux/filter.h | 1 +
> kernel/bpf/core.c | 5 +++
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 3 ++
> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fsession_test.c | 32 ++++++++++++++-----
> 5 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> index 5a075e06cf45..070ba80e39d7 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)
> +{
> + return true;
> +}
> diff --git a/include/linux/filter.h b/include/linux/filter.h
> index fd54fed8f95f..4e1cb4f91f49 100644
> --- a/include/linux/filter.h
> +++ b/include/linux/filter.h
> @@ -1167,6 +1167,7 @@ bool bpf_jit_supports_arena(void);
> bool bpf_jit_supports_insn(struct bpf_insn *insn, bool in_arena);
> bool bpf_jit_supports_private_stack(void);
> bool bpf_jit_supports_timed_may_goto(void);
> +bool bpf_jit_supports_fsession(void);
> u64 bpf_arch_uaddress_limit(void);
> void arch_bpf_stack_walk(bool (*consume_fn)(void *cookie, u64 ip, u64 sp, u64 bp), void *cookie);
> u64 arch_bpf_timed_may_goto(void);
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> index e0b8a8a5aaa9..3b1eb632bf7c 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> @@ -3142,6 +3142,11 @@ bool __weak bpf_jit_supports_insn(struct bpf_insn *insn, bool in_arena)
> return false;
> }
>
> +bool __weak bpf_jit_supports_fsession(void)
> +{
> + return false;
> +}
> +
> u64 __weak bpf_arch_uaddress_limit(void)
> {
> #if defined(CONFIG_64BIT) && defined(CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_NON_OVERLAPPING_ADDRESS_SPACE)
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index c2f2650db9fd..6f867ebf78d1 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -24872,6 +24872,9 @@ int bpf_check_attach_target(struct bpf_verifier_log *log,
> case BPF_TRACE_FENTRY:
> case BPF_TRACE_FEXIT:
> case BPF_TRACE_FSESSION:
> + if (prog->expected_attach_type == BPF_TRACE_FSESSION &&
> + !bpf_jit_supports_fsession())
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> if (!btf_type_is_func(t)) {
> bpf_log(log, "attach_btf_id %u is not a function\n",
> btf_id);
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fsession_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fsession_test.c
> index 0c4b428e1cee..a299aeb8cc2e 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fsession_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fsession_test.c
> @@ -29,8 +29,16 @@ static void test_fsession_basic(void)
> struct fsession_test *skel = NULL;
> int err;
>
> - skel = fsession_test__open_and_load();
> - if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "fsession_test__open_and_load"))
> + skel = fsession_test__open();
> + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "fsession_test__open"))
> + return;
> +
> + err = fsession_test__load(skel);
> + if (err == -EOPNOTSUPP) {
> + test__skip();
> + goto cleanup;
> + }
> + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "fsession_test__load"))
> goto cleanup;
>
> err = fsession_test__attach(skel);
> @@ -47,8 +55,16 @@ static void test_fsession_reattach(void)
> struct fsession_test *skel = NULL;
> int err;
>
> - skel = fsession_test__open_and_load();
> - if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "fsession_test__open_and_load"))
> + skel = fsession_test__open();
> + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "fsession_test__open"))
> + return;
> +
> + err = fsession_test__load(skel);
> + if (err == -EOPNOTSUPP) {
> + test__skip();
> + goto cleanup;
> + }
> + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "fsession_test__load"))
> goto cleanup;
>
> /* first attach */
> @@ -94,6 +110,10 @@ static void test_fsession_cookie(void)
> bpf_program__set_autoload(skel->progs.test6, false);
>
> err = fsession_test__load(skel);
> + if (err == -EOPNOTSUPP) {
> + test__skip();
> + goto cleanup;
> + }
> if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "fsession_test__load"))
> goto cleanup;
>
> @@ -111,10 +131,6 @@ static void test_fsession_cookie(void)
>
> void test_fsession_test(void)
> {
> -#if !defined(__x86_64__)
> - test__skip();
> - return;
> -#endif
Ah, I see you enabled the testing for arm64 in this patch. Maybe
we can move this part to the 3rd patch, or split it out to another
patch?
TBH, I prefer the previous implement. In this way, the CI can
still pass if x86_64 or arm64 return -EOPNOTSUPP, right?
Maybe you can test the not-supported case stand alone, such
as:
#if !defined(__x86_64__)
test__fsession_not_support();
return;
#endif
wdyt?
Thanks!
Menglong Dong
> if (test__start_subtest("fsession_test"))
> test_fsession_basic();
> if (test__start_subtest("fsession_reattach"))
> --
> 2.52.0
>
>
>
On 29/1/26 09:29, Menglong Dong wrote:
> On 2026/1/28 23:01 Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev> write:
>> fsession programs can currently be loaded on architectures that do not
>> implement fsession support, which leads to runtime errors instead of a
>> clean verifier rejection.
>>
>> For example, running fsession selftests on arm64 before fsession support
>> is added results in:
>>
>> test_fsession_basic:PASS:fsession_test__open_and_load 0 nsec
>> test_fsession_basic:PASS:fsession_attach 0 nsec
>> check_result:FAIL:test_run_opts err unexpected error: -14 (errno 14)
>>
>> Introduce bpf_arch_supports_fsession() to explicitly gate fsession usage
>> based on architecture support. Architectures without fsession support
>> will now fail program load with -EOPNOTSUPP, allowing selftests to skip
>> cleanly instead of errors at runtime.
>>
>> x86 declares fsession support, while the default implementation returns
>> false.
>>
>> Fixes: 2d419c44658f ("bpf: add fsession support")
>
> I were wondering how this problem happen, as I remember that
> I added such checking. When I look back, I found that the checking
> is lost during v3->v4. I recalled that the AI warned me about this
> part, but I thought that checking exists in my mind :/
>
> It seems that we can't ignore the AI's warning easily. It mostly
> make sense.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 5 +++
>> include/linux/filter.h | 1 +
>> kernel/bpf/core.c | 5 +++
>> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 3 ++
>> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fsession_test.c | 32 ++++++++++++++-----
>> 5 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>> index 5a075e06cf45..070ba80e39d7 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)
>> +{
>> + return true;
>> +}
>> diff --git a/include/linux/filter.h b/include/linux/filter.h
>> index fd54fed8f95f..4e1cb4f91f49 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/filter.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/filter.h
>> @@ -1167,6 +1167,7 @@ bool bpf_jit_supports_arena(void);
>> bool bpf_jit_supports_insn(struct bpf_insn *insn, bool in_arena);
>> bool bpf_jit_supports_private_stack(void);
>> bool bpf_jit_supports_timed_may_goto(void);
>> +bool bpf_jit_supports_fsession(void);
>> u64 bpf_arch_uaddress_limit(void);
>> void arch_bpf_stack_walk(bool (*consume_fn)(void *cookie, u64 ip, u64 sp, u64 bp), void *cookie);
>> u64 arch_bpf_timed_may_goto(void);
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
>> index e0b8a8a5aaa9..3b1eb632bf7c 100644
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
>> @@ -3142,6 +3142,11 @@ bool __weak bpf_jit_supports_insn(struct bpf_insn *insn, bool in_arena)
>> return false;
>> }
>>
>> +bool __weak bpf_jit_supports_fsession(void)
>> +{
>> + return false;
>> +}
>> +
>> u64 __weak bpf_arch_uaddress_limit(void)
>> {
>> #if defined(CONFIG_64BIT) && defined(CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_NON_OVERLAPPING_ADDRESS_SPACE)
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> index c2f2650db9fd..6f867ebf78d1 100644
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> @@ -24872,6 +24872,9 @@ int bpf_check_attach_target(struct bpf_verifier_log *log,
>> case BPF_TRACE_FENTRY:
>> case BPF_TRACE_FEXIT:
>> case BPF_TRACE_FSESSION:
>> + if (prog->expected_attach_type == BPF_TRACE_FSESSION &&
>> + !bpf_jit_supports_fsession())
>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> if (!btf_type_is_func(t)) {
>> bpf_log(log, "attach_btf_id %u is not a function\n",
>> btf_id);
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fsession_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fsession_test.c
>> index 0c4b428e1cee..a299aeb8cc2e 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fsession_test.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fsession_test.c
>> @@ -29,8 +29,16 @@ static void test_fsession_basic(void)
>> struct fsession_test *skel = NULL;
>> int err;
>>
>> - skel = fsession_test__open_and_load();
>> - if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "fsession_test__open_and_load"))
>> + skel = fsession_test__open();
>> + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "fsession_test__open"))
>> + return;
>> +
>> + err = fsession_test__load(skel);
>> + if (err == -EOPNOTSUPP) {
>> + test__skip();
>> + goto cleanup;
>> + }
>> + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "fsession_test__load"))
>> goto cleanup;
>>
>> err = fsession_test__attach(skel);
>> @@ -47,8 +55,16 @@ static void test_fsession_reattach(void)
>> struct fsession_test *skel = NULL;
>> int err;
>>
>> - skel = fsession_test__open_and_load();
>> - if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "fsession_test__open_and_load"))
>> + skel = fsession_test__open();
>> + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "fsession_test__open"))
>> + return;
>> +
>> + err = fsession_test__load(skel);
>> + if (err == -EOPNOTSUPP) {
>> + test__skip();
>> + goto cleanup;
>> + }
>> + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "fsession_test__load"))
>> goto cleanup;
>>
>> /* first attach */
>> @@ -94,6 +110,10 @@ static void test_fsession_cookie(void)
>> bpf_program__set_autoload(skel->progs.test6, false);
>>
>> err = fsession_test__load(skel);
>> + if (err == -EOPNOTSUPP) {
>> + test__skip();
>> + goto cleanup;
>> + }
>> if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "fsession_test__load"))
>> goto cleanup;
>>
>> @@ -111,10 +131,6 @@ static void test_fsession_cookie(void)
>>
>> void test_fsession_test(void)
>> {
>> -#if !defined(__x86_64__)
>> - test__skip();
>> - return;
>> -#endif
>
> Ah, I see you enabled the testing for arm64 in this patch. Maybe
The test was not enabled for arm64 in this patch, since
bpf_jit_supports_fsession() still returns false there.
The test only becomes enabled when bpf_jit_supports_fsession() returns
true, which happens in patch #2.
> we can move this part to the 3rd patch, or split it out to another
> patch?
> > TBH, I prefer the previous implement. In this way, the CI can
> still pass if x86_64 or arm64 return -EOPNOTSUPP, right?
>
> Maybe you can test the not-supported case stand alone, such
> as:
>
> #if !defined(__x86_64__)
> test__fsession_not_support();
> return;
> #endif
>
> wdyt?
>
With this patch, the test now depends on the runtime return value of
bpf_jit_supports_fsession() rather than a compile-time #if macro.
This makes the test more extensible: when another architecture (e.g.
LoongArch) adds fsession support in the future, it only needs to
implement bpf_jit_supports_fsession() in its JIT backend, which will
enable the test without touching the test code at the same time.
For architectures that do not support fsession, the existing subtests
will be skipped in the same way as before, so a separate
'-EOPNOTSUPP'-specific subtest is not necessary.
Thanks,
Leon
> 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.
> +{
> + return true;
> +}
[ ... ]
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> index e0b8a8a5aa..3b1eb632bf 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> @@ -3142,6 +3142,11 @@ bool __weak bpf_jit_supports_insn(struct bpf_insn *insn, bool in_arena)
> return false;
> }
> +
> +bool __weak bpf_jit_supports_fsession(void)
> +{
> + return false;
> +}
---
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/21443677441
AI-authorship-score: low
AI-authorship-explanation: The naming inconsistency between commit message and code suggests a human renaming the function during development without updating the commit message, not AI-generated content.
issues-found: 1
issue-severity-score: low
issue-severity-explanation: Documentation-only issue - commit message function name does not match actual code, which may confuse future code archaeology but has no runtime impact.
On 2026/1/28 23:26, bot+bpf-ci@kernel.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.
>
There is no issue here.
bpf_jit_supports_fsession() follows the same pattern as other
bpf_jit_supports_*() helpers: it is declared in filter.h, provided as a
__weak default implementation in core.c, and overridden by individual
JIT backends as needed.
Thanks,
Leon
>> +{
>> + return true;
>> +}
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
>> index e0b8a8a5aa..3b1eb632bf 100644
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
>> @@ -3142,6 +3142,11 @@ bool __weak bpf_jit_supports_insn(struct bpf_insn *insn, bool in_arena)
>> return false;
>> }
>> +
>> +bool __weak bpf_jit_supports_fsession(void)
>> +{
>> + return false;
>> +}
>
>
> ---
> 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/21443677441
>
> AI-authorship-score: low
> AI-authorship-explanation: The naming inconsistency between commit message and code suggests a human renaming the function during development without updating the commit message, not AI-generated content.
> issues-found: 1
> issue-severity-score: low
> issue-severity-explanation: Documentation-only issue - commit message function name does not match actual code, which may confuse future code archaeology but has no runtime impact.
On 1/28/26 10:26 AM, bot+bpf-ci@kernel.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@linux.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
On 1/28/26 7:35 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
>
>
> On 1/28/26 10:26 AM, bot+bpf-ci@kernel.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?
This is the email body pre-processing in KPD, yes.
At some point we decided to remove the commit message before sending
an email, but now that AI reviews the messages too, I think we should
just send the generated review-inline.txt as is.
Alexei, wdyt?
>
> [...]
>
On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 9:34 AM Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev> wrote:
>
> On 1/28/26 7:35 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 1/28/26 10:26 AM, bot+bpf-ci@kernel.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?
>
> This is the email body pre-processing in KPD, yes.
>
> At some point we decided to remove the commit message before sending
> an email, but now that AI reviews the messages too, I think we should
> just send the generated review-inline.txt as is.
>
> Alexei, wdyt?
I think KPD is only supposed to trim the header until 'diff ..' line.
In this case there is no 'diff', so I'm not sure why it trimmed so much.
commit sha...
Author: ...
are useless in email reply, so we should still trim them.
On 1/28/26 10:49 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 9:34 AM Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev> wrote:
>>
>> On 1/28/26 7:35 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/28/26 10:26 AM, bot+bpf-ci@kernel.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?
>>
>> This is the email body pre-processing in KPD, yes.
>>
>> At some point we decided to remove the commit message before sending
>> an email, but now that AI reviews the messages too, I think we should
>> just send the generated review-inline.txt as is.
>>
>> Alexei, wdyt?
>
> I think KPD is only supposed to trim the header until 'diff ..' line.
> In this case there is no 'diff', so I'm not sure why it trimmed so much.
There is. Here is the PR comment with the review:
https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/pull/10868#issuecomment-3811930805
KPD trimmed everything before the first "> diff" occurrence, as expected.
I'll try to fix this up in KPD. We should probably search for the first
line starting with "> " (a quote start) to trim the header correctly.
Alternatively, AI can be prompted to avoid generating the header in
review-inline.txt, but that's probably less reliable. And maybe it is
useful for local runs, idk.
>
> commit sha...
> Author: ...
>
> are useless in email reply, so we should still trim them.
On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 11:09 AM Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev> wrote:
>
> On 1/28/26 10:49 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 9:34 AM Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 1/28/26 7:35 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 1/28/26 10:26 AM, bot+bpf-ci@kernel.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?
> >>
> >> This is the email body pre-processing in KPD, yes.
> >>
> >> At some point we decided to remove the commit message before sending
> >> an email, but now that AI reviews the messages too, I think we should
> >> just send the generated review-inline.txt as is.
> >>
> >> Alexei, wdyt?
> >
> > I think KPD is only supposed to trim the header until 'diff ..' line.
> > In this case there is no 'diff', so I'm not sure why it trimmed so much.
>
> There is. Here is the PR comment with the review:
> https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/pull/10868#issuecomment-3811930805
>
> KPD trimmed everything before the first "> diff" occurrence, as expected.
>
> I'll try to fix this up in KPD. We should probably search for the first
> line starting with "> " (a quote start) to trim the header correctly.
>
> Alternatively, AI can be prompted to avoid generating the header in
> review-inline.txt, but that's probably less reliable. And maybe it is
> useful for local runs, idk.
I see. let's then strip the first 4 lines ?
(commit, author, subj) ?
tbh this one was unusual. If it repeats then yeah '> diff' is a wrong marker.
On 2026/1/28 23:35, Chris Mason wrote:
>
>
> On 1/28/26 10:26 AM, bot+bpf-ci@kernel.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@linux.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.
>
Correct, in commit message, the function should be
bpf_jit_supports_fsession(), too.
Thanks,
Leon
Sorry about the subject.
It should be "bpf: Add bpf_jit_supports_fsession()".
On 2026/1/28 23:01, Leon Hwang wrote:
> fsession programs can currently be loaded on architectures that do not
> implement fsession support, which leads to runtime errors instead of a
> clean verifier rejection.
>
> For example, running fsession selftests on arm64 before fsession support
> is added results in:
>
> test_fsession_basic:PASS:fsession_test__open_and_load 0 nsec
> test_fsession_basic:PASS:fsession_attach 0 nsec
> check_result:FAIL:test_run_opts err unexpected error: -14 (errno 14)
>
> Introduce bpf_arch_supports_fsession() to explicitly gate fsession usage
> based on architecture support. Architectures without fsession support
> will now fail program load with -EOPNOTSUPP, allowing selftests to skip
> cleanly instead of errors at runtime.
>
> x86 declares fsession support, while the default implementation returns
> false.
>
> Fixes: 2d419c44658f ("bpf: add fsession support")
> Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>
> ---
> arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 5 +++
> include/linux/filter.h | 1 +
> kernel/bpf/core.c | 5 +++
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 3 ++
> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fsession_test.c | 32 ++++++++++++++-----
> 5 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> index 5a075e06cf45..070ba80e39d7 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)
> +{
> + return true;
> +}
> diff --git a/include/linux/filter.h b/include/linux/filter.h
> index fd54fed8f95f..4e1cb4f91f49 100644
> --- a/include/linux/filter.h
> +++ b/include/linux/filter.h
> @@ -1167,6 +1167,7 @@ bool bpf_jit_supports_arena(void);
> bool bpf_jit_supports_insn(struct bpf_insn *insn, bool in_arena);
> bool bpf_jit_supports_private_stack(void);
> bool bpf_jit_supports_timed_may_goto(void);
> +bool bpf_jit_supports_fsession(void);
> u64 bpf_arch_uaddress_limit(void);
> void arch_bpf_stack_walk(bool (*consume_fn)(void *cookie, u64 ip, u64 sp, u64 bp), void *cookie);
> u64 arch_bpf_timed_may_goto(void);
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> index e0b8a8a5aaa9..3b1eb632bf7c 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> @@ -3142,6 +3142,11 @@ bool __weak bpf_jit_supports_insn(struct bpf_insn *insn, bool in_arena)
> return false;
> }
>
> +bool __weak bpf_jit_supports_fsession(void)
> +{
> + return false;
> +}
> +
> u64 __weak bpf_arch_uaddress_limit(void)
> {
> #if defined(CONFIG_64BIT) && defined(CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_NON_OVERLAPPING_ADDRESS_SPACE)
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index c2f2650db9fd..6f867ebf78d1 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -24872,6 +24872,9 @@ int bpf_check_attach_target(struct bpf_verifier_log *log,
> case BPF_TRACE_FENTRY:
> case BPF_TRACE_FEXIT:
> case BPF_TRACE_FSESSION:
> + if (prog->expected_attach_type == BPF_TRACE_FSESSION &&
> + !bpf_jit_supports_fsession())
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> if (!btf_type_is_func(t)) {
> bpf_log(log, "attach_btf_id %u is not a function\n",
> btf_id);
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fsession_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fsession_test.c
> index 0c4b428e1cee..a299aeb8cc2e 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fsession_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fsession_test.c
> @@ -29,8 +29,16 @@ static void test_fsession_basic(void)
> struct fsession_test *skel = NULL;
> int err;
>
> - skel = fsession_test__open_and_load();
> - if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "fsession_test__open_and_load"))
> + skel = fsession_test__open();
> + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "fsession_test__open"))
> + return;
> +
> + err = fsession_test__load(skel);
> + if (err == -EOPNOTSUPP) {
> + test__skip();
> + goto cleanup;
> + }
> + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "fsession_test__load"))
> goto cleanup;
>
> err = fsession_test__attach(skel);
> @@ -47,8 +55,16 @@ static void test_fsession_reattach(void)
> struct fsession_test *skel = NULL;
> int err;
>
> - skel = fsession_test__open_and_load();
> - if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "fsession_test__open_and_load"))
> + skel = fsession_test__open();
> + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "fsession_test__open"))
> + return;
> +
> + err = fsession_test__load(skel);
> + if (err == -EOPNOTSUPP) {
> + test__skip();
> + goto cleanup;
> + }
> + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "fsession_test__load"))
> goto cleanup;
>
> /* first attach */
> @@ -94,6 +110,10 @@ static void test_fsession_cookie(void)
> bpf_program__set_autoload(skel->progs.test6, false);
>
> err = fsession_test__load(skel);
> + if (err == -EOPNOTSUPP) {
> + test__skip();
> + goto cleanup;
> + }
> if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "fsession_test__load"))
> goto cleanup;
>
> @@ -111,10 +131,6 @@ static void test_fsession_cookie(void)
>
> void test_fsession_test(void)
> {
> -#if !defined(__x86_64__)
> - test__skip();
> - return;
> -#endif
> if (test__start_subtest("fsession_test"))
> test_fsession_basic();
> if (test__start_subtest("fsession_reattach"))
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.