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

[Menglong Dong]

On Tue, Jan 6, 2026 at 4:54 PM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 05, 2026 at 03:20:13PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > 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?
>
> np, we can still adjust, it's in PR that's not merged yet

Nice, wait for me :)

>
> jirka