> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> index 552bc5d9afbd..5f814e7101cf 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> @@ -1154,6 +1154,8 @@ enum bpf_attach_type {
> BPF_TRACE_KPROBE_SESSION,
> BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_SESSION,
> BPF_TRACE_FSESSION,
> + BPF_TRACE_FENTRY_MULTI,
> + BPF_TRACE_FEXIT_MULTI,
> __MAX_BPF_ATTACH_TYPE
> };
In the RFC version posted on February 4, 2026, Leon Hwang asked whether
BPF_TRACE_FSESSION_MULTI should be added alongside BPF_TRACE_FENTRY_MULTI
and BPF_TRACE_FEXIT_MULTI for consistency, since BPF_TRACE_FSESSION exists
and is handled similarly to FENTRY/FEXIT.
Reference:
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/
You acknowledged this with "good catch, will add it" in the same thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/aYM-jeV50WaVik1b@krava/
However, BPF_TRACE_FSESSION_MULTI was not added in any subsequent version
through v5. Should BPF_TRACE_FSESSION_MULTI be included here for API
consistency?
---
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/24583317711
