在 2026/5/21 12:08, [email protected] 写道:
>> diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/kfuncs.rst b/Documentation/bpf/kfuncs.rst
>> index 75e6c078e0e7..3a9db1108b95 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/bpf/kfuncs.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/bpf/kfuncs.rst
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> index 8dd79b735a69..f3cf8d85bea0 100644
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> @@ -12244,6 +12249,13 @@ static int check_kfunc_args(struct bpf_verifier_env
>> *env, struct bpf_kfunc_call_
>> return ret;
>> break;
>> case KF_ARG_PTR_TO_LIST_NODE:
>> + if (is_kfunc_arg_nonown_allowed(btf, &args[i]) &&
>> + type_is_non_owning_ref(reg->type) && !reg->ref_obj_id) {
>> + /* Allow bpf_list_front/back return value for
>> + * __nonown_allowed list-node arguments.
>> + */
>> + goto check_ok;
>> + }
>> if (reg->type != (PTR_TO_BTF_ID | MEM_ALLOC)) {
>> verbose(env, "%s expected pointer to allocated
>> object\n",
>> reg_arg_name(env, argno));
>> @@ -12253,6 +12265,7 @@ static int check_kfunc_args(struct bpf_verifier_env
>> *env, struct bpf_kfunc_call_
>> verbose(env, "allocated object must be referenced\n");
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>> +check_ok:
>> ret = process_kf_arg_ptr_to_list_node(env, reg, argno, meta);
>> if (ret < 0)
>> return ret;
>
> This isn't a bug, but the multi-line comment doesn't match the BPF
> subsystem style. The BPF guide requires multi-line comments to have the
> opening /* on its own line for files under kernel/bpf/. Should this be:
>
> /*
> * Allow bpf_list_front/back return value for
> * __nonown_allowed list-node arguments.
> */
This file uses this comment style extensively, so I followed the
existing convention here.
> Eduard Zingerman raised a related nit in v10 RESEND: the check
> '!reg->ref_obj_id' appears redundant. Would type_is_non_owning_ref() be
> sufficient here?
>
> Reference:
> https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/
>
Sorry, I missed that. If needed, I can fix it in the next version.
> 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/26204125015
--
Thanks
Kaitao Cheng
