Re: [bpf-next:master 2/5] net/core/bpf_ksock.c:221:18: sparse: sparse: symbol 'bpf_ksock_release_dtor' was not declared. Should it be static?

[Jiayuan Chen <jiayuan.chen@linux.dev>]

On 8/17/26 5:23 PM, Mahe Tardy wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2026 at 12:36:48PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>> tree:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git master
>> head:   c93cbdb13f995f87b5356329b3fe551c80bb482d
>> commit: 7ae4eb14c5f9d9bf0e0feabeab206151b1280512 [2/5] bpf: Add ksock kfuncs
>> config: nios2-randconfig-r112-20260817 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20260817/202608171256.McaD8rfl-lkp@intel.com/config)
>> compiler: nios2-linux-gcc (GCC) 11.5.0
>> sparse: v0.6.5-rc1
>> reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20260817/202608171256.McaD8rfl-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)
>>
>> If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
>> the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
>> | Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
>> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202608171256.McaD8rfl-lkp@intel.com/
>>
>> sparse warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>)
>>>> net/core/bpf_ksock.c:221:18: sparse: sparse: symbol 'bpf_ksock_release_dtor' was not declared. Should it be static?
> I'll add the 'static', it seems to make sense. I mostly copied this from
> all the others examples with release_dtor functions which don't have
> them but it seems for no good reason.


I think we do not need 'static' actually, just like the doc says


https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git/tree/Documentation/bpf/kfuncs.rst#n356


     Note that kfuncs must not be declared ``static``. A kfunc can be 
called from a
     BPF program ``*.c`` file outside the compilation unit that defines 
it, so its
     externally visible name must remain available for BTF ID lookup. 
``static``
     linkage allows the compiler to rename the function, which can break 
this
     BTF-based kfunc resolution. Further note that sparse may warn that 
an otherwise
     unreferenced kfunc should be static. Such warnings should be 
ignored for kfunc
     definitions.




>> vim +/bpf_ksock_release_dtor +221 net/core/bpf_ksock.c
>>
>>     220	
>>   > 221	__bpf_kfunc void bpf_ksock_release_dtor(void *ks)
>>     222	{
>>     223		bpf_ksock_release(ks);
>>     224	}
>>     225	CFI_NOSEAL(bpf_ksock_release_dtor);
>>     226	
>>
>> --
>> 0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
>> https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki