Re: [PATCH bpf-next v6 00/10] bpf: fsession support

[Andrii Nakryiko]

On Mon, Jan 5, 2026 at 2:33 PM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2026 at 4:28 AM Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > In current solution, we can't reuse the existing bpf_session_cookie() and
> > bpf_session_is_return(), as their prototype is different from
> > bpf_fsession_is_return() and bpf_fsession_cookie(). In
> > bpf_fsession_cookie(), we need the function argument "void *ctx" to get
> > the cookie. However, the prototype of bpf_session_cookie() is "void".
>
> I think it's ok to change proto to bpf_session_cookie(void *ctx)
> for kprobe-session. It's not widely used yet, so proto change is ok
> if it helps to simplify this tramp-session code.
> I see that you adjust get_kfunc_ptr_arg_type(), so the verifier
> will enforce PTR_TO_CTX for kprobe and trampoline.
> Potentially can relax and enforce r1==ctx only for trampoline,
> but I would do it for both for consistency.

Yeah, I'd support that. It's early enough that this shouldn't be
breaking a lot of users (if any).

Jiri, do you guys use bpf_session_is_return() or bpf_session_cookie()
anywhere already?