Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 1/2] bpf: Support struct btf_struct_meta via KF_IMPLICIT_ARGS

[Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev>]

On 3/12/26 1:05 PM, bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org wrote:
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
>> index cb6d242bd093..e5c8fb6596e7 100644
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
>> +__bpf_kfunc void *bpf_percpu_obj_new(u64 local_type_id__k, struct btf_struct_meta *meta)
>> +{
>> +	u64 size = local_type_id__k;
>> +
>> +	/* The verifier has ensured that meta__ign must be NULL */
>> +	return bpf_mem_alloc(&bpf_global_percpu_ma, size);
>> +}
> 
> The parameter here is named "meta", not "meta__ign". Should this
> comment say "meta" instead?
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
>> +__bpf_kfunc void bpf_percpu_obj_drop(void *p__alloc, struct btf_struct_meta *meta)
>> +{
>> +	/* The verifier has ensured that meta__ign must be NULL */
>> +	bpf_mem_free_rcu(&bpf_global_percpu_ma, p__alloc);
>> +}
> 
> Same here -- the comment references "meta__ign" but the parameter is
> "meta".
> 
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> index 4fbacd2149cd..2e4f1e9b1d37 100644
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
>> @@ -13575,12 +13658,12 @@ static int check_kfunc_args(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_kfunc_call_
>>  		case KF_ARG_PTR_TO_ALLOC_BTF_ID:
>>  			if (reg->type == (PTR_TO_BTF_ID | MEM_ALLOC)) {
>> -				if (meta->func_id != special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_obj_drop_impl]) {
>> +				if (!is_bpf_obj_drop_kfunc(meta->func_id)) {
>>  					verbose(env, "arg#%d expected for bpf_obj_drop_impl()\n", i);
>>  					return -EINVAL;
>>  				}
>>  			} else if (reg->type == (PTR_TO_BTF_ID | MEM_ALLOC | MEM_PERCPU)) {
>> -				if (meta->func_id != special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_percpu_obj_drop_impl]) {
>> +				if (!is_bpf_percpu_obj_drop_kfunc(meta->func_id)) {
>>  					verbose(env, "arg#%d expected for bpf_percpu_obj_drop_impl()\n", i);
>>  					return -EINVAL;
>>  				}
> 
> The conditions now match both bpf_obj_drop and bpf_obj_drop_impl (and
> their percpu variants), but the error messages still reference only
> the _impl names. Would it make sense to update these to say
> "bpf_obj_drop" and "bpf_percpu_obj_drop" respectively, so that a
> developer calling the new variants sees the right function name in
> the error?

All valid nits. Lost this in my inbox before sending v2.
Will send a v3 soon.

> 
> 
> ---
> 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/23020502189