> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index 2abc79dbf281..c3a574cc0d09 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -12749,6 +12773,10 @@ static int check_special_kfunc(struct
> bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_kfunc_ca
> verbose(env, "bpf_obj_new/bpf_percpu_obj_new type ID
> argument must be of a struct\n");
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> + if (btf_type_has_trailing_flex_array(ret_btf, ret_t)) {
> + verbose(env, "bpf_obj_new type must not contain a
> flexible array\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
This isn't a bug, but this branch handles both is_bpf_obj_new_kfunc and
is_bpf_percpu_obj_new_kfunc, and the message just above uses the dual form
"bpf_obj_new/bpf_percpu_obj_new".
Should this new message also say "bpf_obj_new/bpf_percpu_obj_new" so it
reads correctly when it fires for a bpf_percpu_obj_new() call?
>
> if (is_bpf_percpu_obj_new_kfunc(meta->func_id)) {
> if (ret_t->size > BPF_GLOBAL_PERCPU_MA_MAX_SIZE) {
---
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/27931273498
