All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: 'Alexei Starovoitov ' <ast@kernel.org>,
	'Andrii Nakryiko ' <andrii@kernel.org>,
	'Daniel Borkmann ' <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	'Shakeel Butt ' <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>,
	'Roman Gushchin ' <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
	'Amery Hung ' <ameryhung@gmail.com>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH bpf-next 01/12] bpf: Remove __rcu tagging in st_link->map
Date: Tue, 19 May 2026 14:58:08 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260519215841.2984970-2-martin.lau@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260519215841.2984970-1-martin.lau@linux.dev>

From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>

st_link->map is always written under update_mutex. The paths that read
st_link->map with rcu_read_lock() are not in the fast path, so they can
simply take update_mutex instead. Remove the __rcu annotation and replace
all RCU accessors with direct pointer reads under update_mutex. Use
READ_ONCE() in bpf_struct_ops_map_link_poll() which reads the pointer
without holding update_mutex.

It is a simplification change.

Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
---
 kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c | 29 ++++++++++++++---------------
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
index 521cb9d7e8c7..08791180d71d 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
@@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ struct bpf_struct_ops_map {
 
 struct bpf_struct_ops_link {
 	struct bpf_link link;
-	struct bpf_map __rcu *map;
+	struct bpf_map *map;
 	wait_queue_head_t wait_hup;
 };
 
@@ -1220,8 +1220,7 @@ static void bpf_struct_ops_map_link_dealloc(struct bpf_link *link)
 	struct bpf_struct_ops_map *st_map;
 
 	st_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_struct_ops_link, link);
-	st_map = (struct bpf_struct_ops_map *)
-		rcu_dereference_protected(st_link->map, true);
+	st_map = (struct bpf_struct_ops_map *)st_link->map;
 	if (st_map) {
 		st_map->st_ops_desc->st_ops->unreg(&st_map->kvalue.data, link);
 		bpf_map_put(&st_map->map);
@@ -1236,11 +1235,11 @@ static void bpf_struct_ops_map_link_show_fdinfo(const struct bpf_link *link,
 	struct bpf_map *map;
 
 	st_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_struct_ops_link, link);
-	rcu_read_lock();
-	map = rcu_dereference(st_link->map);
+	mutex_lock(&update_mutex);
+	map = st_link->map;
 	if (map)
 		seq_printf(seq, "map_id:\t%d\n", map->id);
-	rcu_read_unlock();
+	mutex_unlock(&update_mutex);
 }
 
 static int bpf_struct_ops_map_link_fill_link_info(const struct bpf_link *link,
@@ -1250,11 +1249,11 @@ static int bpf_struct_ops_map_link_fill_link_info(const struct bpf_link *link,
 	struct bpf_map *map;
 
 	st_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_struct_ops_link, link);
-	rcu_read_lock();
-	map = rcu_dereference(st_link->map);
+	mutex_lock(&update_mutex);
+	map = st_link->map;
 	if (map)
 		info->struct_ops.map_id = map->id;
-	rcu_read_unlock();
+	mutex_unlock(&update_mutex);
 	return 0;
 }
 
@@ -1277,7 +1276,7 @@ static int bpf_struct_ops_map_link_update(struct bpf_link *link, struct bpf_map
 
 	mutex_lock(&update_mutex);
 
-	old_map = rcu_dereference_protected(st_link->map, lockdep_is_held(&update_mutex));
+	old_map = st_link->map;
 	if (!old_map) {
 		err = -ENOLINK;
 		goto err_out;
@@ -1299,7 +1298,7 @@ static int bpf_struct_ops_map_link_update(struct bpf_link *link, struct bpf_map
 		goto err_out;
 
 	bpf_map_inc(new_map);
-	rcu_assign_pointer(st_link->map, new_map);
+	WRITE_ONCE(st_link->map, new_map);
 	bpf_map_put(old_map);
 
 err_out:
@@ -1316,7 +1315,7 @@ static int bpf_struct_ops_map_link_detach(struct bpf_link *link)
 
 	mutex_lock(&update_mutex);
 
-	map = rcu_dereference_protected(st_link->map, lockdep_is_held(&update_mutex));
+	map = st_link->map;
 	if (!map) {
 		mutex_unlock(&update_mutex);
 		return 0;
@@ -1325,7 +1324,7 @@ static int bpf_struct_ops_map_link_detach(struct bpf_link *link)
 
 	st_map->st_ops_desc->st_ops->unreg(&st_map->kvalue.data, link);
 
-	RCU_INIT_POINTER(st_link->map, NULL);
+	WRITE_ONCE(st_link->map, NULL);
 	/* Pair with bpf_map_get() in bpf_struct_ops_link_create() or
 	 * bpf_map_inc() in bpf_struct_ops_map_link_update().
 	 */
@@ -1345,7 +1344,7 @@ static __poll_t bpf_struct_ops_map_link_poll(struct file *file,
 
 	poll_wait(file, &st_link->wait_hup, pts);
 
-	return rcu_access_pointer(st_link->map) ? 0 : EPOLLHUP;
+	return READ_ONCE(st_link->map) ? 0 : EPOLLHUP;
 }
 
 static const struct bpf_link_ops bpf_struct_ops_map_lops = {
@@ -1401,7 +1400,7 @@ int bpf_struct_ops_link_create(union bpf_attr *attr)
 		link = NULL;
 		goto err_out;
 	}
-	RCU_INIT_POINTER(link->map, map);
+	link->map = map;
 	mutex_unlock(&update_mutex);
 
 	return bpf_link_settle(&link_primer);
-- 
2.53.0-Meta


  reply	other threads:[~2026-05-19 21:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-05-19 21:58 [RFC PATCH bpf-next 00/12] bpf: A common way to attach struct_ops to a cgroup Martin KaFai Lau
2026-05-19 21:58 ` Martin KaFai Lau [this message]
2026-05-19 21:58 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 02/12] bpf: Make struct_ops tasks_rcu grace period optional Martin KaFai Lau
2026-05-19 22:54   ` sashiko-bot
2026-05-20  0:25     ` Martin KaFai Lau
2026-05-19 21:58 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 03/12] bpf: Add bpf_struct_ops accessor helpers Martin KaFai Lau
2026-05-19 22:25   ` sashiko-bot
2026-05-19 21:58 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 04/12] bpf: Remove unnecessary prog_list_prog() check Martin KaFai Lau
2026-05-19 22:49   ` sashiko-bot
2026-05-19 21:58 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 05/12] bpf: Replace prog_list_prog() check with direct pl->prog and pl->link check Martin KaFai Lau
2026-05-19 21:58 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 06/12] bpf: Add prog_list_init_item(), prog_list_replace_item(), and prog_list_id() Martin KaFai Lau
2026-05-19 21:58 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 07/12] bpf: Move LSM trampoline unlink into bpf_cgroup_link_auto_detach() Martin KaFai Lau
2026-05-19 21:58 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 08/12] bpf: Add a few bpf_cgroup_array_* helper functions Martin KaFai Lau
2026-05-19 22:45   ` sashiko-bot
2026-05-19 22:50     ` Martin KaFai Lau
2026-05-19 21:58 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 09/12] bpf: Add infrastructure to support attaching struct_ops to cgroups Martin KaFai Lau
2026-05-19 22:50   ` sashiko-bot
2026-05-19 23:56     ` Martin KaFai Lau
2026-05-26 17:54       ` Amery Hung
2026-05-26 21:37         ` Martin KaFai Lau
2026-05-26 22:23           ` Amery Hung
2026-05-19 21:58 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 10/12] bpf: tcp: Support selected sock_ops callbacks as struct_ops Martin KaFai Lau
2026-05-19 21:58 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 11/12] libbpf: Support attaching struct_ops to a cgroup Martin KaFai Lau
2026-05-19 21:58 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 12/12] selftests/bpf: Test " Martin KaFai Lau
2026-05-19 23:03   ` sashiko-bot

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20260519215841.2984970-2-martin.lau@linux.dev \
    --to=martin.lau@linux.dev \
    --cc=ameryhung@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
    --cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.