> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > index e7ff8394e0..6e0693ac72 100644 > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > @@ -24874,6 +24874,9 @@ 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;
This isn't a bug, but other similar bpf_jit_supports_*() checks in this file include a bpf_log() message before returning an error. For example: bpf_jit_supports_kfunc_call() -> "JIT does not support calling kernel function" bpf_jit_supports_exceptions() -> "JIT does not support calling kfunc..." bpf_jit_supports_arena() -> "JIT doesn't support arena" bpf_jit_supports_private_stack() -> "Private stack not supported by jit" Should this check also include a message like "JIT does not support fsession" for consistency with other similar checks in the verifier? --- 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/21482297342 AI-authorship-score: low AI-authorship-explanation: The commit demonstrates specific debugging context with actual test output and errno values, correct understanding of kernel BPF conventions, and follows established patterns - typical of experienced human kernel developers. issues-found: 1 issue-severity-score: low issue-severity-explanation: Minor consistency issue - missing bpf_log() error message compared to similar checks in the same file; does not affect functionality or stability.
