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

[Menglong Dong]

On 2026/1/6 05:20 Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> write:
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2026 at 4:28 AM Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, all.
> >
[......]
> > Maybe it's possible to reuse the existing bpf_session_cookie() and
> > bpf_session_is_return(). First, we move the nr_regs from stack to struct
> > bpf_tramp_run_ctx, as Andrii suggested before. Then, we define the session
> > cookies as flexible array in bpf_tramp_run_ctx like this:
> >     struct bpf_tramp_run_ctx {
> >         struct bpf_run_ctx run_ctx;
> >         u64 bpf_cookie;
> >         struct bpf_run_ctx *saved_run_ctx;
> >         u64 func_meta; /* nr_args, cookie_index, etc */
> >         u64 fsession_cookies[];
> >     };
> >
> > The problem of this approach is that we can't inlined the bpf helper
> > anymore, such as get_func_arg, get_func_ret, get_func_arg_cnt, etc, as
> > we can't use the "current" in BPF assembly.
> >
> 
> We can, as Alexei suggested on your other patch set. Is this still a
> valid concern?

Yeah, with the support of BPF_MOV64_PERCPU_REG, it's much easier
now.

So what approach should I use now? Change the prototype of
bpf_session_is_return/bpf_session_cookie, as Alexei suggested, or
use the approach here? I think both works, and I'm a little torn
now. Any suggestions?

Thanks!
Menglong Dong

> 
> I think having separate duplicated ksession and fsession specific
> bpf_[f]session_{is_return,session_cookie}() APIs is really bad and
> confusing long-term.
> 
> > So maybe it's better to use the new kfunc for now? And I'm analyzing that
> 
> there is no "for now", this decision will be with us for a really long time...
> 
> > if it is possible to inline "current" in verifier. Maybe we can convert to
> > the solu
[......]
> >
>