Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 2/4] bpf: Support associating BPF program with struct_ops

[Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>]

On 10/16/25 1:45 PM, Amery Hung wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
> index a41e6730edcf..e060d9823e4a 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c
> @@ -528,6 +528,7 @@ static void bpf_struct_ops_map_put_progs(struct bpf_struct_ops_map *st_map)
>   	for (i = 0; i < st_map->funcs_cnt; i++) {
>   		if (!st_map->links[i])
>   			break;
> +		bpf_prog_disassoc_struct_ops(st_map->links[i]->prog);

It took me some time to understand why it needs to specifically call 
bpf_prog_disassoc_struct_ops here for struct_ops programs. bpf_prog_put 
has not been done yet. The BPF_PTR_POISON could be set back to NULL. My 
understanding is the BPF_PTR_POISON should stay with the prog's lifetime?
>   		bpf_link_put(st_map->links[i]);
>   		st_map->links[i] = NULL;
>   	}
> @@ -801,6 +802,9 @@ static long bpf_struct_ops_map_update_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key,
>   			goto reset_unlock;
>   		}
>   
> +		/* If the program is reused, prog->aux->st_ops_assoc will be poisoned */
> +		bpf_prog_assoc_struct_ops(prog, &st_map->map);
> +
>   		link = kzalloc(sizeof(*link), GFP_USER);
>   		if (!link) {
>   			bpf_prog_put(prog);
> @@ -1394,6 +1398,46 @@ int bpf_struct_ops_link_create(union bpf_attr *attr)
>   	return err;
>   }
>   
> +int bpf_prog_assoc_struct_ops(struct bpf_prog *prog, struct bpf_map *map)
> +{
> +	struct bpf_struct_ops_map *st_map = (struct bpf_struct_ops_map *)map;
> +	void *kdata = &st_map->kvalue.data;
> +	int ret = 0;
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&prog->aux->st_ops_assoc_mutex);
> +
> +	if (prog->aux->st_ops_assoc && prog->aux->st_ops_assoc != kdata) {
> +		if (prog->type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_STRUCT_OPS)
> +			WRITE_ONCE(prog->aux->st_ops_assoc, BPF_PTR_POISON);
> +
> +		ret = -EBUSY;
> +		goto out;
> +	}
> +
> +	WRITE_ONCE(prog->aux->st_ops_assoc, kdata);
> +out:
> +	mutex_unlock(&prog->aux->st_ops_assoc_mutex);
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
> +void bpf_prog_disassoc_struct_ops(struct bpf_prog *prog)
> +{
> +	mutex_lock(&prog->aux->st_ops_assoc_mutex);

Can it check the prog type here and decide if bpf_struct_ops_put needs 
to be called?

> +	WRITE_ONCE(prog->aux->st_ops_assoc, NULL);