* [PATCH v4] btf: reject to register duplicated kfunc
@ 2026-06-02 11:07 Song Chen
2026-06-02 11:34 ` Kaitao Cheng
2026-06-02 17:13 ` Yonghong Song
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Song Chen @ 2026-06-02 11:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: martin.lau, ast, alexei.starovoitov, daniel, andrii, eddyz87,
song, yonghong.song, john.fastabend, kpsingh, sdf, haoluo, jolsa,
kaitao.cheng
Cc: bpf, linux-kernel, Song Chen
I had an ebpf program which calls a kfunc defined and
implemented in one of my kernel modules, it was working
fine in 6.16, but was rejected to run by libbpf in 6.19,
the error message was:
libbpf: extern (func ksym) 'bpf_strstr': func_proto [5]
incompatible with vmlinux [94389]
The reason is there is a new added kfunc in kernel 6.19
which happens to be the same name with my kfunc. However the
error message is not obvious enough to address problem
immediately.
Therefore, this patches searches duplicated kfunc in
both btf_vmlinux and btf_modules list before a kernel module
attempts to register kfuncs through register_btf_kfunc_id_set,
it prints clear error message and returns error code if same name
kfunc has already implemented and registered, then developer
knows at the first place.
Suggested-by: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Suggested-by: Kaitao Cheng <kaitao.cheng@linux.dev>
Reviewed-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Signed-off-by: Song Chen <chensong_2000@126.com>
---
changelog:
v1 --- v2:
libbpf has already specified which module this kfunc belongs to as
ebpf code onwer's expectation, then verifier uses
find_kallsyms_symbol_value to search kfunc's addr.
v2 --- v3:
After v2, I tried a new idea of introducing a namespace in libbpf
to specify kfunc owner in an ebpf program suggested by Kaitao Cheng,
please see [1]. Alex suggested to go back to report an error during
kmod load on conflicting kfunc name for now. What's more, v2 only
searched bpf_vmlinux, v3 also traverses btf_modules list.
v3 --- v4
Fixed some coding style problems suggested from Kaitao Cheng.
---
kernel/bpf/btf.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/btf.c b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
index 4872d2a6c42d..fe1612677a4a 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/btf.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
@@ -8618,6 +8618,41 @@ static int btf_check_iter_kfuncs(struct btf *btf, const char *func_name,
return 0;
}
+static int btf_check_kfunc_name(struct btf *btf, const char *func_name, u32 kind)
+{
+#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF_MODULES
+ struct btf_module *btf_mod, *tmp;
+#endif
+ s32 id;
+
+ if (!btf_is_module(btf))
+ return 0;
+
+ id = btf_find_by_name_kind(bpf_get_btf_vmlinux(), func_name, kind);
+ if (id >= 0) {
+ pr_err("kfunc %s (id: %d) is already present in vmlinux.\n",
+ func_name, id);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF_MODULES
+ mutex_lock(&btf_module_mutex);
+ list_for_each_entry_safe(btf_mod, tmp, &btf_modules, list) {
+ if (btf_mod->btf == btf)
+ continue;
+ id = btf_find_by_name_kind(btf_mod->btf, func_name, kind);
+ if (id >= 0) {
+ pr_err("kfunc %s (id: %d) is already present in module %s.\n",
+ func_name, id, btf_mod->module->name);
+ mutex_unlock(&btf_module_mutex);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+ }
+ mutex_unlock(&btf_module_mutex);
+#endif
+ return 0;
+}
+
static int btf_check_kfunc_protos(struct btf *btf, u32 func_id, u32 func_flags)
{
const struct btf_type *func;
@@ -8631,7 +8666,8 @@ static int btf_check_kfunc_protos(struct btf *btf, u32 func_id, u32 func_flags)
/* sanity check kfunc name */
func_name = btf_name_by_offset(btf, func->name_off);
- if (!func_name || !func_name[0])
+ if (!func_name || !func_name[0] ||
+ btf_check_kfunc_name(btf, func_name, BTF_INFO_KIND(func->info)))
return -EINVAL;
func = btf_type_by_id(btf, func->type);
--
2.43.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v4] btf: reject to register duplicated kfunc
2026-06-02 11:07 [PATCH v4] btf: reject to register duplicated kfunc Song Chen
@ 2026-06-02 11:34 ` Kaitao Cheng
2026-06-02 17:13 ` Yonghong Song
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Kaitao Cheng @ 2026-06-02 11:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Song Chen
Cc: bpf, ast, alexei.starovoitov, daniel, andrii, eddyz87, song,
yonghong.song, john.fastabend, kpsingh, sdf, haoluo, jolsa,
linux-kernel, martin.lau
在 2026/6/2 19:07, Song Chen 写道:
> I had an ebpf program which calls a kfunc defined and
> implemented in one of my kernel modules, it was working
> fine in 6.16, but was rejected to run by libbpf in 6.19,
> the error message was:
>
> libbpf: extern (func ksym) 'bpf_strstr': func_proto [5]
> incompatible with vmlinux [94389]
>
> The reason is there is a new added kfunc in kernel 6.19
> which happens to be the same name with my kfunc. However the
> error message is not obvious enough to address problem
> immediately.
>
> Therefore, this patches searches duplicated kfunc in
> both btf_vmlinux and btf_modules list before a kernel module
> attempts to register kfuncs through register_btf_kfunc_id_set,
> it prints clear error message and returns error code if same name
> kfunc has already implemented and registered, then developer
> knows at the first place.
>
> Suggested-by: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
> Suggested-by: Kaitao Cheng <kaitao.cheng@linux.dev>
> Reviewed-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
> Signed-off-by: Song Chen <chensong_2000@126.com>
>
> ---
> changelog:
> v1 --- v2:
> libbpf has already specified which module this kfunc belongs to as
> ebpf code onwer's expectation, then verifier uses
> find_kallsyms_symbol_value to search kfunc's addr.
>
> v2 --- v3:
> After v2, I tried a new idea of introducing a namespace in libbpf
> to specify kfunc owner in an ebpf program suggested by Kaitao Cheng,
> please see [1]. Alex suggested to go back to report an error during
> kmod load on conflicting kfunc name for now. What's more, v2 only
> searched bpf_vmlinux, v3 also traverses btf_modules list.
>
> v3 --- v4
> Fixed some coding style problems suggested from Kaitao Cheng.
> ---
> kernel/bpf/btf.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/btf.c b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> index 4872d2a6c42d..fe1612677a4a 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> @@ -8618,6 +8618,41 @@ static int btf_check_iter_kfuncs(struct btf *btf, const char *func_name,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int btf_check_kfunc_name(struct btf *btf, const char *func_name, u32 kind)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF_MODULES
> + struct btf_module *btf_mod, *tmp;
> +#endif
> + s32 id;
> +
> + if (!btf_is_module(btf))
> + return 0;
> +
> + id = btf_find_by_name_kind(bpf_get_btf_vmlinux(), func_name, kind);
> + if (id >= 0) {
> + pr_err("kfunc %s (id: %d) is already present in vmlinux.\n",
> + func_name, id);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF_MODULES
> + mutex_lock(&btf_module_mutex);
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(btf_mod, tmp, &btf_modules, list) {
> + if (btf_mod->btf == btf)
> + continue;
> + id = btf_find_by_name_kind(btf_mod->btf, func_name, kind);
> + if (id >= 0) {
> + pr_err("kfunc %s (id: %d) is already present in module %s.\n",
> + func_name, id, btf_mod->module->name);
> + mutex_unlock(&btf_module_mutex);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> + }
> + mutex_unlock(&btf_module_mutex);
> +#endif
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> static int btf_check_kfunc_protos(struct btf *btf, u32 func_id, u32 func_flags)
> {
> const struct btf_type *func;
> @@ -8631,7 +8666,8 @@ static int btf_check_kfunc_protos(struct btf *btf, u32 func_id, u32 func_flags)
>
> /* sanity check kfunc name */
> func_name = btf_name_by_offset(btf, func->name_off);
> - if (!func_name || !func_name[0])
> + if (!func_name || !func_name[0] ||
> + btf_check_kfunc_name(btf, func_name, BTF_INFO_KIND(func->info)))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> func = btf_type_by_id(btf, func->type);
Reviewed-by: Kaitao Cheng <chengkaitao@kylinos.cn>
--
Thanks
Kaitao Cheng
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v4] btf: reject to register duplicated kfunc
2026-06-02 11:07 [PATCH v4] btf: reject to register duplicated kfunc Song Chen
2026-06-02 11:34 ` Kaitao Cheng
@ 2026-06-02 17:13 ` Yonghong Song
2026-06-03 2:18 ` Leon Hwang
2026-06-03 9:11 ` Song Chen
1 sibling, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Yonghong Song @ 2026-06-02 17:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Song Chen, martin.lau, ast, alexei.starovoitov, daniel, andrii,
eddyz87, song, john.fastabend, kpsingh, sdf, haoluo, jolsa,
kaitao.cheng
Cc: bpf, linux-kernel
On 6/2/26 4:07 AM, Song Chen wrote:
> I had an ebpf program which calls a kfunc defined and
> implemented in one of my kernel modules, it was working
> fine in 6.16, but was rejected to run by libbpf in 6.19,
> the error message was:
>
> libbpf: extern (func ksym) 'bpf_strstr': func_proto [5]
> incompatible with vmlinux [94389]
>
> The reason is there is a new added kfunc in kernel 6.19
> which happens to be the same name with my kfunc. However the
> error message is not obvious enough to address problem
> immediately.
>
> Therefore, this patches searches duplicated kfunc in
> both btf_vmlinux and btf_modules list before a kernel module
> attempts to register kfuncs through register_btf_kfunc_id_set,
> it prints clear error message and returns error code if same name
> kfunc has already implemented and registered, then developer
> knows at the first place.
>
> Suggested-by: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
> Suggested-by: Kaitao Cheng <kaitao.cheng@linux.dev>
> Reviewed-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
> Signed-off-by: Song Chen <chensong_2000@126.com>
The subject can be [PATCH bpf v4] bpf: Reject to register duplicated kfunc
>
> ---
> changelog:
> v1 --- v2:
> libbpf has already specified which module this kfunc belongs to as
> ebpf code onwer's expectation, then verifier uses
> find_kallsyms_symbol_value to search kfunc's addr.
>
> v2 --- v3:
> After v2, I tried a new idea of introducing a namespace in libbpf
> to specify kfunc owner in an ebpf program suggested by Kaitao Cheng,
> please see [1]. Alex suggested to go back to report an error during
> kmod load on conflicting kfunc name for now. What's more, v2 only
> searched bpf_vmlinux, v3 also traverses btf_modules list.
>
> v3 --- v4
> Fixed some coding style problems suggested from Kaitao Cheng.
> ---
> kernel/bpf/btf.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/btf.c b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> index 4872d2a6c42d..fe1612677a4a 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> @@ -8618,6 +8618,41 @@ static int btf_check_iter_kfuncs(struct btf *btf, const char *func_name,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int btf_check_kfunc_name(struct btf *btf, const char *func_name, u32 kind)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF_MODULES
> + struct btf_module *btf_mod, *tmp;
> +#endif
> + s32 id;
s32 err = 0, id;
> +
> + if (!btf_is_module(btf))
> + return 0;
> +
> + id = btf_find_by_name_kind(bpf_get_btf_vmlinux(), func_name, kind);
> + if (id >= 0) {
> + pr_err("kfunc %s (id: %d) is already present in vmlinux.\n",
> + func_name, id);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF_MODULES
> + mutex_lock(&btf_module_mutex);
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(btf_mod, tmp, &btf_modules, list) {
> + if (btf_mod->btf == btf)
> + continue;
> + id = btf_find_by_name_kind(btf_mod->btf, func_name, kind);
> + if (id >= 0) {
> + pr_err("kfunc %s (id: %d) is already present in module %s.\n",
> + func_name, id, btf_mod->module->name);
> + mutex_unlock(&btf_module_mutex);
> + return -EINVAL;
Let us avoid the above mutex_unlock and 'return -EINVAL', just do
err = -EINVAL;
break;
> + }
> + }
> + mutex_unlock(&btf_module_mutex);
> +#endif
> + return 0;
return err;
> +}
> +
> static int btf_check_kfunc_protos(struct btf *btf, u32 func_id, u32 func_flags)
> {
> const struct btf_type *func;
> @@ -8631,7 +8666,8 @@ static int btf_check_kfunc_protos(struct btf *btf, u32 func_id, u32 func_flags)
>
> /* sanity check kfunc name */
> func_name = btf_name_by_offset(btf, func->name_off);
> - if (!func_name || !func_name[0])
> + if (!func_name || !func_name[0] ||
> + btf_check_kfunc_name(btf, func_name, BTF_INFO_KIND(func->info)))
format issue:
if (!func_name || !func_name[0] ||
btf_check_kfunc_name(btf, func_name, BTF_INFO_KIND(func->info)))
...
> return -EINVAL;
>
> func = btf_type_by_id(btf, func->type);
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v4] btf: reject to register duplicated kfunc
2026-06-02 17:13 ` Yonghong Song
@ 2026-06-03 2:18 ` Leon Hwang
2026-06-03 9:15 ` Song Chen
2026-06-03 9:11 ` Song Chen
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Leon Hwang @ 2026-06-03 2:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yonghong Song, Song Chen, martin.lau, ast, alexei.starovoitov,
daniel, andrii, eddyz87, song, john.fastabend, kpsingh, sdf,
haoluo, jolsa, kaitao.cheng
Cc: bpf, linux-kernel
On 3/6/26 01:13, Yonghong Song wrote:
>
>
> On 6/2/26 4:07 AM, Song Chen wrote:
[...]
>> +
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF_MODULES
>> + mutex_lock(&btf_module_mutex);
>> + list_for_each_entry_safe(btf_mod, tmp, &btf_modules, list) {
>> + if (btf_mod->btf == btf)
>> + continue;
>> + id = btf_find_by_name_kind(btf_mod->btf, func_name, kind);
>> + if (id >= 0) {
>> + pr_err("kfunc %s (id: %d) is already present in module
>> %s.\n",
>> + func_name, id, btf_mod->module->name);
>> + mutex_unlock(&btf_module_mutex);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>
> Let us avoid the above mutex_unlock and 'return -EINVAL', just do
> err = -EINVAL;
> break;
>
Better to use guard(mutex)(&btf_module_mutex)?
Thanks,
Leon
>> [...]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v4] btf: reject to register duplicated kfunc
2026-06-03 2:18 ` Leon Hwang
@ 2026-06-03 9:15 ` Song Chen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Song Chen @ 2026-06-03 9:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Leon Hwang, Yonghong Song, martin.lau, ast, alexei.starovoitov,
daniel, andrii, eddyz87, song, john.fastabend, kpsingh, sdf,
haoluo, jolsa, kaitao.cheng
Cc: bpf, linux-kernel
Hi,
在 2026/6/3 10:18, Leon Hwang 写道:
> On 3/6/26 01:13, Yonghong Song wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 6/2/26 4:07 AM, Song Chen wrote:
> [...]
>>> +
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF_MODULES
>>> + mutex_lock(&btf_module_mutex);
>>> + list_for_each_entry_safe(btf_mod, tmp, &btf_modules, list) {
>>> + if (btf_mod->btf == btf)
>>> + continue;
>>> + id = btf_find_by_name_kind(btf_mod->btf, func_name, kind);
>>> + if (id >= 0) {
>>> + pr_err("kfunc %s (id: %d) is already present in module
>>> %s.\n",
>>> + func_name, id, btf_mod->module->name);
>>> + mutex_unlock(&btf_module_mutex);
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>
>> Let us avoid the above mutex_unlock and 'return -EINVAL', just do
>> err = -EINVAL;
>> break;
>>
>
> Better to use guard(mutex)(&btf_module_mutex)?
>
This is the first time i used guard and it's awesome. I have tested in
my code and will send a new patch later, many thanks.
> Thanks,
> Leon
>
>>> [...]
Song
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v4] btf: reject to register duplicated kfunc
2026-06-02 17:13 ` Yonghong Song
2026-06-03 2:18 ` Leon Hwang
@ 2026-06-03 9:11 ` Song Chen
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Song Chen @ 2026-06-03 9:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yonghong Song, martin.lau, ast, alexei.starovoitov, daniel,
andrii, eddyz87, song, john.fastabend, kpsingh, sdf, haoluo,
jolsa, kaitao.cheng
Cc: bpf, linux-kernel
Hi,
在 2026/6/3 01:13, Yonghong Song 写道:
>
>
> On 6/2/26 4:07 AM, Song Chen wrote:
>> I had an ebpf program which calls a kfunc defined and
>> implemented in one of my kernel modules, it was working
>> fine in 6.16, but was rejected to run by libbpf in 6.19,
>> the error message was:
>>
>> libbpf: extern (func ksym) 'bpf_strstr': func_proto [5]
>> incompatible with vmlinux [94389]
>>
>> The reason is there is a new added kfunc in kernel 6.19
>> which happens to be the same name with my kfunc. However the
>> error message is not obvious enough to address problem
>> immediately.
>>
>> Therefore, this patches searches duplicated kfunc in
>> both btf_vmlinux and btf_modules list before a kernel module
>> attempts to register kfuncs through register_btf_kfunc_id_set,
>> it prints clear error message and returns error code if same name
>> kfunc has already implemented and registered, then developer
>> knows at the first place.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
>> Suggested-by: Kaitao Cheng <kaitao.cheng@linux.dev>
>> Reviewed-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
>> Signed-off-by: Song Chen <chensong_2000@126.com>
>
> The subject can be [PATCH bpf v4] bpf: Reject to register duplicated kfunc
>
>>
>> ---
>> changelog:
>> v1 --- v2:
>> libbpf has already specified which module this kfunc belongs to as
>> ebpf code onwer's expectation, then verifier uses
>> find_kallsyms_symbol_value to search kfunc's addr.
>>
>> v2 --- v3:
>> After v2, I tried a new idea of introducing a namespace in libbpf
>> to specify kfunc owner in an ebpf program suggested by Kaitao Cheng,
>> please see [1]. Alex suggested to go back to report an error during
>> kmod load on conflicting kfunc name for now. What's more, v2 only
>> searched bpf_vmlinux, v3 also traverses btf_modules list.
>>
>> v3 --- v4
>> Fixed some coding style problems suggested from Kaitao Cheng.
>> ---
>> kernel/bpf/btf.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/btf.c b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
>> index 4872d2a6c42d..fe1612677a4a 100644
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/btf.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
>> @@ -8618,6 +8618,41 @@ static int btf_check_iter_kfuncs(struct btf
>> *btf, const char *func_name,
>> return 0;
>> }
>> +static int btf_check_kfunc_name(struct btf *btf, const char
>> *func_name, u32 kind)
>> +{
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF_MODULES
>> + struct btf_module *btf_mod, *tmp;
>> +#endif
>> + s32 id;
>
> s32 err = 0, id;
>
>> +
>> + if (!btf_is_module(btf))
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + id = btf_find_by_name_kind(bpf_get_btf_vmlinux(), func_name, kind);
>> + if (id >= 0) {
>> + pr_err("kfunc %s (id: %d) is already present in vmlinux.\n",
>> + func_name, id);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF_MODULES
>> + mutex_lock(&btf_module_mutex);
>> + list_for_each_entry_safe(btf_mod, tmp, &btf_modules, list) {
>> + if (btf_mod->btf == btf)
>> + continue;
>> + id = btf_find_by_name_kind(btf_mod->btf, func_name, kind);
>> + if (id >= 0) {
>> + pr_err("kfunc %s (id: %d) is already present in module
>> %s.\n",
>> + func_name, id, btf_mod->module->name);
>> + mutex_unlock(&btf_module_mutex);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>
> Let us avoid the above mutex_unlock and 'return -EINVAL', just do
> err = -EINVAL;
> break;
>
>> + }
>> + }
>> + mutex_unlock(&btf_module_mutex);
>> +#endif
>> + return 0;
>
> return err;
>
I will go with guard(mutex), please review my next submit and let me
know if you're ok with it or not. Thanks.
>> +}
>> +
>> static int btf_check_kfunc_protos(struct btf *btf, u32 func_id, u32
>> func_flags)
>> {
>> const struct btf_type *func;
>> @@ -8631,7 +8666,8 @@ static int btf_check_kfunc_protos(struct btf
>> *btf, u32 func_id, u32 func_flags)
>> /* sanity check kfunc name */
>> func_name = btf_name_by_offset(btf, func->name_off);
>> - if (!func_name || !func_name[0])
>> + if (!func_name || !func_name[0] ||
>> + btf_check_kfunc_name(btf, func_name, BTF_INFO_KIND(func->info)))
>
> format issue:
> if (!func_name || !func_name[0] ||
> btf_check_kfunc_name(btf, func_name, BTF_INFO_KIND(func->info)))
> ...
>
I will fix it with indentation plus space.
>> return -EINVAL;
>> func = btf_type_by_id(btf, func->type);
>
many thanks.
Song
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-06-03 9:17 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2026-06-02 11:07 [PATCH v4] btf: reject to register duplicated kfunc Song Chen
2026-06-02 11:34 ` Kaitao Cheng
2026-06-02 17:13 ` Yonghong Song
2026-06-03 2:18 ` Leon Hwang
2026-06-03 9:15 ` Song Chen
2026-06-03 9:11 ` Song Chen
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®