BPF List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Chengkaitao <pilgrimtao@gmail.com>
To: 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: [PATCH v6 1/5] bpf: Introduce the bpf_list_del kfunc.
Date: Wed,  4 Mar 2026 22:34:55 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260304143459.78059-2-pilgrimtao@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260304143459.78059-1-pilgrimtao@gmail.com>

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.

We have added an additional parameter bpf_list_head *head to
bpf_list_del, as the verifier requires the head parameter to
check whether the lock is being held.

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  | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c |  6 +++++-
 2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
index 6eb6c82ed2ee..cc1a096a1f64 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
@@ -2459,6 +2459,32 @@ __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,
+					       struct bpf_list_node *node)
+{
+	struct bpf_list_node_kern *knode = (struct bpf_list_node_kern *)node;
+	struct list_head *h = (void *)head;
+
+	/* If list_head was 0-initialized by map, bpf_obj_init_field wasn't
+	 * called on its fields, so init here
+	 */
+	if (unlikely(!h->next)) {
+		INIT_LIST_HEAD(h);
+		return NULL;
+	}
+
+	if (unlikely(!knode))
+		return NULL;
+
+	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(READ_ONCE(knode->owner) != head))
+		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 +4571,7 @@ 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] ||
 	       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] ||
-- 
2.50.1 (Apple Git-155)


  reply	other threads:[~2026-03-04 14:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-03-04 14:34 [PATCH v6 0/5] bpf: Extend the bpf_list family of APIs Chengkaitao
2026-03-04 14:34 ` Chengkaitao [this message]
2026-03-06  0:00   ` [PATCH v6 1/5] bpf: Introduce the bpf_list_del kfunc Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-03-06  0:14   ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-03-06  0:28     ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-03-04 14:34 ` [PATCH v6 2/5] bpf: Add bpf_list_add_impl to insert node after a given list node Chengkaitao
2026-03-06  0:36   ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-03-04 14:34 ` [PATCH v6 3/5] bpf: Add bpf_list_is_edge/empty kfuncs Chengkaitao
2026-03-04 15:08   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-03-06  0:47     ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-03-04 14:34 ` [PATCH v6 4/5] selftests/bpf: Add test cases for bpf_list_del/add/is_edge/empty Chengkaitao
2026-03-06  0:52   ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-03-04 14:34 ` [PATCH v6 5/5] bpf/verifier: refactor kfunc checks to table-driven approach Chengkaitao
2026-03-04 15:08   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-03-04 15:59   ` Leon Hwang
2026-03-04 15:51 ` [PATCH v6 0/5] bpf: Extend the bpf_list family of APIs Leon Hwang

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=20260304143459.78059-2-pilgrimtao@gmail.com \
    --to=pilgrimtao@gmail.com \
    --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=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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox