On Sun, Mar 29, 2026 at 7:05 AM Chengkaitao <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Kaitao Cheng <[email protected]> > > Replace per-kfunc btf_id chains check with btf_id_in_kfunc_table() and > static kfunc tables for easier maintenance. > > Prepare for future extensions to the bpf_list API family. > > Signed-off-by: Kaitao Cheng <[email protected]> > --- > kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 261 +++++++++++++++++++++++------------------- > 1 file changed, 144 insertions(+), 117 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > index 4fbacd2149cd..f2d9863bb290 100644 > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > @@ -544,9 +544,6 @@ static bool is_async_callback_calling_kfunc(u32 btf_id); > static bool is_callback_calling_kfunc(u32 btf_id); > static bool is_bpf_throw_kfunc(struct bpf_insn *insn); > > -static bool is_bpf_wq_set_callback_kfunc(u32 btf_id); > -static bool is_task_work_add_kfunc(u32 func_id); > - > static bool is_sync_callback_calling_function(enum bpf_func_id func_id) > { > return func_id == BPF_FUNC_for_each_map_elem || > @@ -586,7 +583,7 @@ static bool is_async_cb_sleepable(struct bpf_verifier_env > *env, struct bpf_insn > > /* bpf_wq and bpf_task_work callbacks are always sleepable. */ > if (bpf_pseudo_kfunc_call(insn) && insn->off == 0 && > - (is_bpf_wq_set_callback_kfunc(insn->imm) || > is_task_work_add_kfunc(insn->imm))) > + is_async_callback_calling_kfunc(insn->imm)) > return true; > > verifier_bug(env, "unhandled async callback in > is_async_cb_sleepable"); > @@ -11203,31 +11200,6 @@ static int > set_task_work_schedule_callback_state(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, > return 0; > } > > -static bool is_rbtree_lock_required_kfunc(u32 btf_id); > - > -/* Are we currently verifying the callback for a rbtree helper that must > - * be called with lock held? If so, no need to complain about unreleased > - * lock > - */ > -static bool in_rbtree_lock_required_cb(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) > -{ > - struct bpf_verifier_state *state = env->cur_state; > - struct bpf_insn *insn = env->prog->insnsi; > - struct bpf_func_state *callee; > - int kfunc_btf_id; > - > - if (!state->curframe) > - return false; > - > - callee = state->frame[state->curframe]; > - > - if (!callee->in_callback_fn) > - return false; > - > - kfunc_btf_id = insn[callee->callsite].imm; > - return is_rbtree_lock_required_kfunc(kfunc_btf_id); > -} > - > static bool retval_range_within(struct bpf_retval_range range, const struct > bpf_reg_state *reg) > { > if (range.return_32bit) > @@ -12639,11 +12611,103 @@ BTF_ID(func, bpf_session_is_return) > BTF_ID(func, bpf_stream_vprintk) > BTF_ID(func, bpf_stream_print_stack) > > -static bool is_task_work_add_kfunc(u32 func_id) > -{ > - return func_id == > special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_task_work_schedule_signal] || > - func_id == > special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_task_work_schedule_resume]; > -} > +/* Kfunc family related to list. */ > +static const enum special_kfunc_type bpf_list_api_kfuncs[] = { > + KF_bpf_list_push_front_impl, > + KF_bpf_list_push_back_impl, > + KF_bpf_list_pop_front, > + KF_bpf_list_pop_back, > + KF_bpf_list_front, > + KF_bpf_list_back, > +}; > + > +/* Kfuncs that take a list node argument (bpf_list_node *). */ > +static const enum special_kfunc_type bpf_list_node_api_kfuncs[] = { > + KF_bpf_list_push_front_impl, > + KF_bpf_list_push_back_impl, > +}; > + > +/* Kfuncs that take an rbtree node argument (bpf_rb_node *). */ > +static const enum special_kfunc_type bpf_rbtree_node_api_kfuncs[] = { > + KF_bpf_rbtree_remove, > + KF_bpf_rbtree_add_impl, > + KF_bpf_rbtree_left, > + KF_bpf_rbtree_right, > +}; > + > +/* Kfunc family related to rbtree. */ > +static const enum special_kfunc_type bpf_rbtree_api_kfuncs[] = { > + KF_bpf_rbtree_add_impl, > + KF_bpf_rbtree_remove, > + KF_bpf_rbtree_first, > + KF_bpf_rbtree_root, > + KF_bpf_rbtree_left, > + KF_bpf_rbtree_right, > +}; > + > +/* Kfunc family related to spin_lock. */ > +static const enum special_kfunc_type bpf_res_spin_lock_api_kfuncs[] = { > + KF_bpf_res_spin_lock, > + KF_bpf_res_spin_unlock, > + KF_bpf_res_spin_lock_irqsave, > + KF_bpf_res_spin_unlock_irqrestore, > +};
I think it's a step in the wrong direction. I'd wait for Ihor's BTF_ID_NAMED cleanup. Kaitao Cheng, also please start your part of code reviews. Your patches are not going to be landing if you don't code review. https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAADnVQ+TKKptnNB25V3=bcdybh5g6c2dyw2sytxvyravnpn...@mail.gmail.com/ pw-bot: cr
