From: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>
To: Chengkaitao <pilgrimtao@gmail.com>,
martin.lau@linux.dev, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net,
andrii@kernel.org, eddyz87@gmail.com, song@kernel.org,
yonghong.song@linux.dev, john.fastabend@gmail.com,
kpsingh@kernel.org, sdf@fomichev.me, haoluo@google.com,
jolsa@kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org, chengkaitao@kylinos.cn,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] bpf: Introduce the bpf_list_del kfunc.
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2026 11:27:01 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8bbcfaf1-95f8-4e86-bbc9-fb2199c5df9f@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260303135219.33726-2-pilgrimtao@gmail.com>
On 3/3/26 21:52, Chengkaitao wrote:
> From: Kaitao Cheng <chengkaitao@kylinos.cn>
>
> If a user holds ownership of a node in the middle of a list, they
> can directly remove it from the list without strictly adhering to
> deletion rules from the head or tail.
>
> This is typically paired with bpf_refcount. After calling
> bpf_list_del, it is generally necessary to drop the reference to
> the list node twice to prevent reference count leaks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kaitao Cheng <chengkaitao@kylinos.cn>
> ---
> kernel/bpf/helpers.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 6 +++++-
> 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> index 6eb6c82ed2ee..19d88da8e694 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> @@ -2459,6 +2459,24 @@ __bpf_kfunc struct bpf_list_node *bpf_list_pop_back(struct bpf_list_head *head)
> return __bpf_list_del(head, true);
> }
>
> +__bpf_kfunc struct bpf_list_node *bpf_list_del(struct bpf_list_head *head,
NIT: The commit log should explain why the head parameter is needed,
similar to patch #3.
> + struct bpf_list_node *node)
> +{
> + struct bpf_list_node_kern *knode = (struct bpf_list_node_kern *)node;
> + struct list_head *h = (void *)head;
> +
> + if (unlikely(!knode))
> + return NULL;
Similar to __bpf_list_del(), what if the list head was 0-initialized?
> +
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(READ_ONCE(knode->owner) != h))
> + return NULL;
> +
> + list_del_init(&knode->list_head);
> + WRITE_ONCE(knode->owner, NULL);
> +
> + return node;
> +}
> +
> __bpf_kfunc struct bpf_list_node *bpf_list_front(struct bpf_list_head *head)
> {
> struct list_head *h = (struct list_head *)head;
> @@ -4545,6 +4563,7 @@ BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_list_push_front_impl)
> BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_list_push_back_impl)
> BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_list_pop_front, KF_ACQUIRE | KF_RET_NULL)
> BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_list_pop_back, KF_ACQUIRE | KF_RET_NULL)
> +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_list_del, KF_ACQUIRE | KF_RET_NULL)
> BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_list_front, KF_RET_NULL)
> BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_list_back, KF_RET_NULL)
> BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_task_acquire, KF_ACQUIRE | KF_RCU | KF_RET_NULL)
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index 67c09b43a497..c9557d3fb8dd 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -12461,6 +12461,7 @@ enum special_kfunc_type {
> KF_bpf_list_push_back_impl,
> KF_bpf_list_pop_front,
> KF_bpf_list_pop_back,
> + KF_bpf_list_del,
> KF_bpf_list_front,
> KF_bpf_list_back,
> KF_bpf_cast_to_kern_ctx,
> @@ -12521,6 +12522,7 @@ BTF_ID(func, bpf_list_push_front_impl)
> BTF_ID(func, bpf_list_push_back_impl)
> BTF_ID(func, bpf_list_pop_front)
> BTF_ID(func, bpf_list_pop_back)
> +BTF_ID(func, bpf_list_del)
> BTF_ID(func, bpf_list_front)
> BTF_ID(func, bpf_list_back)
> BTF_ID(func, bpf_cast_to_kern_ctx)
> @@ -12996,6 +12998,7 @@ static bool is_bpf_list_api_kfunc(u32 btf_id)
> btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_push_back_impl] ||
> btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_pop_front] ||
> btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_pop_back] ||
> + btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_del] ||
NIT: This series adds 5 list kfuncs, growing the is_bpf_list_api_kfunc()
chain from 5 to 10. It is worth considering a table-driven approach,
which could also apply to check_kfunc_is_graph_node_api().
Thanks,
Leon
> btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_front] ||
> btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_back];
> }
> @@ -13118,7 +13121,8 @@ static bool check_kfunc_is_graph_node_api(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
> switch (node_field_type) {
> case BPF_LIST_NODE:
> ret = (kfunc_btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_push_front_impl] ||
> - kfunc_btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_push_back_impl]);
> + kfunc_btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_push_back_impl] ||
> + kfunc_btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_del]);
> break;
> case BPF_RB_NODE:
> ret = (kfunc_btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_remove] ||
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-04 3:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-03 13:52 [PATCH v4 0/6] bpf: Extend the bpf_list family of APIs Chengkaitao
2026-03-03 13:52 ` [PATCH v4 1/6] bpf: Introduce the bpf_list_del kfunc Chengkaitao
2026-03-04 3:27 ` Leon Hwang [this message]
2026-03-03 13:52 ` [PATCH v4 2/6] selftests/bpf: Add test cases for bpf_list_del Chengkaitao
2026-03-04 3:27 ` Leon Hwang
2026-03-03 13:52 ` [PATCH v4 3/6] bpf: add bpf_list_add_impl to insert node after a given list node Chengkaitao
2026-03-03 14:40 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-03-04 3:29 ` Leon Hwang
2026-03-03 13:52 ` [PATCH v4 4/6] selftests/bpf: Add test case for bpf_list_add_impl Chengkaitao
2026-03-03 13:52 ` [PATCH v4 5/6] bpf: add bpf_list_is_first/last/empty kfuncs Chengkaitao
2026-03-04 3:30 ` Leon Hwang
2026-03-03 13:52 ` [PATCH v4 6/6] selftests/bpf: Add test cases for bpf_list_is_first/is_last/empty Chengkaitao
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=8bbcfaf1-95f8-4e86-bbc9-fb2199c5df9f@linux.dev \
--to=leon.hwang@linux.dev \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=chengkaitao@kylinos.cn \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=haoluo@google.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=pilgrimtao@gmail.com \
--cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=yonghong.song@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.