[PATCH v6 0/5] bpf: Extend the bpf_list family of APIs

[PATCH v6 0/5] bpf: Extend the bpf_list family of APIs

[Chengkaitao]

From: Kaitao Cheng <chengkaitao@kylinos.cn>

In BPF, a list can only be used to implement a stack structure.
Due to an incomplete API set, only FIFO or LIFO operations are
supported. The patches enhance the BPF list API, making it more
list-like.

Four new kfuncs have been added:
bpf_list_del: remove a node from the list
bpf_list_add_impl: insert a node after a given list node
bpf_list_node_is_edge: check if a node is the first or last in the list
bpf_list_empty: check if the list is empty

refactor kfunc checks to table-driven approach, and add test cases for
the aforementioned kfuncs.

Changes in v6:
- Merge [patch v5 (2,4,6)/6] into [patch v6 4/5]
- If list_head was 0-initialized, init it
- refactor kfunc checks to table-driven approach

Changes in v5:
- Fix bpf_obj leak on bpf_list_add_impl error

Changes in v4:
- [patch v3 1/6] Revert to version v1
- Change the parameters of bpf_list_add_impl to (head, new, prev, ...)

Changes in v3:
- Add a new lock_rec member to struct bpf_reference_state for lock
  holding detection.
- Add test cases to verify that the verifier correctly restricts calls
  to bpf_list_del when the spin_lock is not held.

Changes in v2:
- Remove the head parameter from bpf_list_del
- Add bpf_list_add/is_first/is_last/empty to API and test cases

Link to v5:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260304031606.43884-1-pilgrimtao@gmail.com/

Link to v4:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260303135219.33726-1-pilgrimtao@gmail.com/

Link to v3:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260302124028.82420-1-pilgrimtao@gmail.com/

Link to v2:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260225092651.94689-1-pilgrimtao@gmail.com/

Link to v1:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260209025250.55750-1-pilgrimtao@gmail.com/

Kaitao Cheng (5):
  bpf: Introduce the bpf_list_del kfunc.
  bpf: Add bpf_list_add_impl to insert node after a given list node
  bpf: Add bpf_list_is_edge/empty kfuncs
  selftests/bpf: Add test cases for bpf_list_del/add/is_edge/empty
  bpf/verifier: refactor kfunc checks to table-driven approach

 kernel/bpf/helpers.c                          |  98 ++++++++++
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c                         | 103 +++++++---
 .../testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_experimental.h  |  39 ++++
 .../selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr.c     | 182 ++++++++++++++++++
 4 files changed, 398 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)

-- 
2.50.1 (Apple Git-155)

[PATCH v6 1/5] bpf: Introduce the bpf_list_del kfunc.

[Chengkaitao]

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)

Re: [PATCH v6 1/5] bpf: Introduce the bpf_list_del kfunc.

[Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi]

On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 at 15:50, Chengkaitao <pilgrimtao@gmail.com> 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.
>
> 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>
> ---

Acked-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>

> [...]

Re: [PATCH v6 1/5] bpf: Introduce the bpf_list_del kfunc.

[Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi]

On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 at 15:50, Chengkaitao <pilgrimtao@gmail.com> 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.
>
> 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;
> +       }

nit: I would avoid doing this here, just for symmetry.
If we are part of the list after the owner checks, this should be
initialized correctly anyway.

> +
> +       if (unlikely(!knode))
> +               return NULL;

nit: It seems like node can't (shouldn't) be NULL, so we can lose this check.

> +
> +       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)
>
>

Re: [PATCH v6 1/5] bpf: Introduce the bpf_list_del kfunc.

[Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi]

On Fri, 6 Mar 2026 at 01:14, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 at 15:50, Chengkaitao <pilgrimtao@gmail.com> 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.
> >
> > 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;
> > +       }
>
> nit: I would avoid doing this here, just for symmetry.
> If we are part of the list after the owner checks, this should be
> initialized correctly anyway.

Hmm, looks like I should take my ack back (just in principle, there's
no bug here).
I see you copied the comment and check from __bpf_list_del.
I was looking at rbtree_remove to see whether it did RB_CLEAR_NODE(n).

I think it's fine to keep this init, but let's try not repeating the
same logic twice.
I would make all 3 (pop_front, pop_back, list_del) use __bpf_list_del.
Just pass h->next, h->prev, or node depending on which one is being called.

>
> > +
> > +       if (unlikely(!knode))
> > +               return NULL;
>
> nit: It seems like node can't (shouldn't) be NULL, so we can lose this check.
>
> > +
> > +       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)
> >
> >

[PATCH v6 2/5] bpf: Add bpf_list_add_impl to insert node after a given list node

[Chengkaitao]

From: Kaitao Cheng <chengkaitao@kylinos.cn>

Add a new kfunc bpf_list_add_impl(head, new, prev, meta, off) that
inserts 'new' after 'prev' in the BPF linked list. Both must be in
the same list; 'prev' must already be in the list. The new node must
be an owning reference (e.g. from bpf_obj_new); the kfunc consumes
that reference and the node becomes non-owning once inserted.

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

Returns 0 on success, -EINVAL if 'prev' is not in a list or 'new'
is already in a list (or duplicate insertion). On failure, the
kernel drops the passed-in node.

Signed-off-by: Kaitao Cheng <chengkaitao@kylinos.cn>
---
 kernel/bpf/helpers.c  | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 17 +++++++++++++----
 2 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
index cc1a096a1f64..740b53024283 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
@@ -2505,6 +2505,39 @@ __bpf_kfunc struct bpf_list_node *bpf_list_back(struct bpf_list_head *head)
 	return (struct bpf_list_node *)h->prev;
 }
 
+__bpf_kfunc int bpf_list_add_impl(struct bpf_list_head *head,
+				  struct bpf_list_node *new,
+				  struct bpf_list_node *prev,
+				  void *meta__ign, u64 off)
+{
+	struct bpf_list_node_kern *kn = (void *)new, *kp = (void *)prev;
+	struct btf_struct_meta *meta = meta__ign;
+	struct list_head *n = &kn->list_head, *p = &kp->list_head;
+	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);
+		goto fail;
+	}
+
+	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(READ_ONCE(kp->owner) != head))
+		goto fail;
+
+	if (cmpxchg(&kn->owner, NULL, BPF_PTR_POISON))
+		goto fail;
+
+	list_add(n, p);
+	WRITE_ONCE(kn->owner, head);
+	return 0;
+
+fail:
+	__bpf_obj_drop_impl((void *)n - off, meta ? meta->record : NULL, false);
+	return -EINVAL;
+}
+
 __bpf_kfunc struct bpf_rb_node *bpf_rbtree_remove(struct bpf_rb_root *root,
 						  struct bpf_rb_node *node)
 {
@@ -4574,6 +4607,7 @@ 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_list_add_impl)
 BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_task_acquire, KF_ACQUIRE | KF_RCU | KF_RET_NULL)
 BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_task_release, KF_RELEASE)
 BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_rbtree_remove, KF_ACQUIRE | KF_RET_NULL)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index c9557d3fb8dd..e458cf3b1dd1 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -12464,6 +12464,7 @@ enum special_kfunc_type {
 	KF_bpf_list_del,
 	KF_bpf_list_front,
 	KF_bpf_list_back,
+	KF_bpf_list_add_impl,
 	KF_bpf_cast_to_kern_ctx,
 	KF_bpf_rdonly_cast,
 	KF_bpf_rcu_read_lock,
@@ -12525,6 +12526,7 @@ 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_list_add_impl)
 BTF_ID(func, bpf_cast_to_kern_ctx)
 BTF_ID(func, bpf_rdonly_cast)
 BTF_ID(func, bpf_rcu_read_lock)
@@ -13000,7 +13002,8 @@ static bool is_bpf_list_api_kfunc(u32 btf_id)
 	       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];
+	       btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_back] ||
+	       btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_add_impl];
 }
 
 static bool is_bpf_rbtree_api_kfunc(u32 btf_id)
@@ -13122,7 +13125,8 @@ static bool check_kfunc_is_graph_node_api(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 	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_del]);
+		       kfunc_btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_del] ||
+		       kfunc_btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_add_impl]);
 		break;
 	case BPF_RB_NODE:
 		ret = (kfunc_btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_remove] ||
@@ -14264,6 +14268,7 @@ static int check_kfunc_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn,
 
 	if (meta.func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_push_front_impl] ||
 	    meta.func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_push_back_impl] ||
+	    meta.func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_add_impl] ||
 	    meta.func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_add_impl]) {
 		release_ref_obj_id = regs[BPF_REG_2].ref_obj_id;
 		insn_aux->insert_off = regs[BPF_REG_2].off;
@@ -23230,13 +23235,17 @@ static int fixup_kfunc_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn,
 		*cnt = 3;
 	} else if (desc->func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_push_back_impl] ||
 		   desc->func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_push_front_impl] ||
+		   desc->func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_add_impl] ||
 		   desc->func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_add_impl]) {
 		struct btf_struct_meta *kptr_struct_meta = env->insn_aux_data[insn_idx].kptr_struct_meta;
 		int struct_meta_reg = BPF_REG_3;
 		int node_offset_reg = BPF_REG_4;
 
-		/* rbtree_add has extra 'less' arg, so args-to-fixup are in diff regs */
-		if (desc->func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_add_impl]) {
+		/* list/rbtree_add_impl have an extra arg (prev/less),
+		 * so args-to-fixup are in different regs.
+		 */
+		if (desc->func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_add_impl] ||
+		    desc->func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_add_impl]) {
 			struct_meta_reg = BPF_REG_4;
 			node_offset_reg = BPF_REG_5;
 		}
-- 
2.50.1 (Apple Git-155)

Re: [PATCH v6 2/5] bpf: Add bpf_list_add_impl to insert node after a given list node

[Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi]

On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 at 15:55, Chengkaitao <pilgrimtao@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Kaitao Cheng <chengkaitao@kylinos.cn>
>
> Add a new kfunc bpf_list_add_impl(head, new, prev, meta, off) that
> inserts 'new' after 'prev' in the BPF linked list. Both must be in
> the same list; 'prev' must already be in the list. The new node must
> be an owning reference (e.g. from bpf_obj_new); the kfunc consumes
> that reference and the node becomes non-owning once inserted.
>
> We have added an additional parameter bpf_list_head *head to
> bpf_list_add_impl, as the verifier requires the head parameter to
> check whether the lock is being held.
>
> Returns 0 on success, -EINVAL if 'prev' is not in a list or 'new'
> is already in a list (or duplicate insertion). On failure, the
> kernel drops the passed-in node.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kaitao Cheng <chengkaitao@kylinos.cn>
> ---
>  kernel/bpf/helpers.c  | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 17 +++++++++++++----
>  2 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> index cc1a096a1f64..740b53024283 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> @@ -2505,6 +2505,39 @@ __bpf_kfunc struct bpf_list_node *bpf_list_back(struct bpf_list_head *head)
>         return (struct bpf_list_node *)h->prev;
>  }
>
> +__bpf_kfunc int bpf_list_add_impl(struct bpf_list_head *head,
> +                                 struct bpf_list_node *new,
> +                                 struct bpf_list_node *prev,
> +                                 void *meta__ign, u64 off)

I have pretty much the same comment here, there is a lot of
duplication between this and __bpf_list_add.
We can write list_add_tail in terms of __list_add, and then unify all of this.

> +{
> +       struct bpf_list_node_kern *kn = (void *)new, *kp = (void *)prev;
> +       struct btf_struct_meta *meta = meta__ign;
> +       struct list_head *n = &kn->list_head, *p = &kp->list_head;
> +       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);
> +               goto fail;

Not clear to me why we should fail here; why can't we continue adding
after initializing the list head?
E.g. __bpf_list_add isn't doing it.

> +       }
> +
> +       if (WARN_ON_ONCE(READ_ONCE(kp->owner) != head))
> +               goto fail;
> +
> +       if (cmpxchg(&kn->owner, NULL, BPF_PTR_POISON))
> +               goto fail;
> +
> +       list_add(n, p);
> +       WRITE_ONCE(kn->owner, head);
> +       return 0;
> +
> +fail:
> +       __bpf_obj_drop_impl((void *)n - off, meta ? meta->record : NULL, false);
> +       return -EINVAL;
> +}
> +
>  __bpf_kfunc struct bpf_rb_node *bpf_rbtree_remove(struct bpf_rb_root *root,
>                                                   struct bpf_rb_node *node)
>  {
> @@ -4574,6 +4607,7 @@ 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_list_add_impl)
>  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_task_acquire, KF_ACQUIRE | KF_RCU | KF_RET_NULL)
>  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_task_release, KF_RELEASE)
>  BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_rbtree_remove, KF_ACQUIRE | KF_RET_NULL)
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index c9557d3fb8dd..e458cf3b1dd1 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -12464,6 +12464,7 @@ enum special_kfunc_type {
>         KF_bpf_list_del,
>         KF_bpf_list_front,
>         KF_bpf_list_back,
> +       KF_bpf_list_add_impl,
>         KF_bpf_cast_to_kern_ctx,
>         KF_bpf_rdonly_cast,
>         KF_bpf_rcu_read_lock,
> @@ -12525,6 +12526,7 @@ 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_list_add_impl)
>  BTF_ID(func, bpf_cast_to_kern_ctx)
>  BTF_ID(func, bpf_rdonly_cast)
>  BTF_ID(func, bpf_rcu_read_lock)
> @@ -13000,7 +13002,8 @@ static bool is_bpf_list_api_kfunc(u32 btf_id)
>                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];
> +              btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_back] ||
> +              btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_add_impl];
>  }
>
>  static bool is_bpf_rbtree_api_kfunc(u32 btf_id)
> @@ -13122,7 +13125,8 @@ static bool check_kfunc_is_graph_node_api(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>         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_del]);
> +                      kfunc_btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_del] ||
> +                      kfunc_btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_add_impl]);
>                 break;
>         case BPF_RB_NODE:
>                 ret = (kfunc_btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_remove] ||
> @@ -14264,6 +14268,7 @@ static int check_kfunc_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn,
>
>         if (meta.func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_push_front_impl] ||
>             meta.func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_push_back_impl] ||
> +           meta.func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_add_impl] ||
>             meta.func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_add_impl]) {
>                 release_ref_obj_id = regs[BPF_REG_2].ref_obj_id;
>                 insn_aux->insert_off = regs[BPF_REG_2].off;
> @@ -23230,13 +23235,17 @@ static int fixup_kfunc_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn,
>                 *cnt = 3;
>         } else if (desc->func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_push_back_impl] ||
>                    desc->func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_push_front_impl] ||
> +                  desc->func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_add_impl] ||
>                    desc->func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_add_impl]) {
>                 struct btf_struct_meta *kptr_struct_meta = env->insn_aux_data[insn_idx].kptr_struct_meta;
>                 int struct_meta_reg = BPF_REG_3;
>                 int node_offset_reg = BPF_REG_4;
>
> -               /* rbtree_add has extra 'less' arg, so args-to-fixup are in diff regs */
> -               if (desc->func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_add_impl]) {
> +               /* list/rbtree_add_impl have an extra arg (prev/less),
> +                * so args-to-fixup are in different regs.
> +                */
> +               if (desc->func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_add_impl] ||
> +                   desc->func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_add_impl]) {
>                         struct_meta_reg = BPF_REG_4;
>                         node_offset_reg = BPF_REG_5;
>                 }
> --
> 2.50.1 (Apple Git-155)
>
>

[PATCH v6 3/5] bpf: Add bpf_list_is_edge/empty kfuncs

[Chengkaitao]

From: Kaitao Cheng <chengkaitao@kylinos.cn>

Add three kfuncs for BPF linked list queries:
- bpf_list_node_is_edge(head, node, is_first): true if node is the first
  (when is_first is true) or the last (when is_first is false) in the list.
- bpf_list_empty(head): true if the list has no entries.

In previous versions, to implement the above functionality, it was
necessary to first call bpf_list_pop_front/back to retrieve the first
or last node before checking whether the passed-in node was the first
or last one. After the check, the node had to be pushed back into the
list using bpf_list_push_front/back, which was very inefficient.

Now, with the bpf_list_is_edge/empty kfuncs, we can directly
check whether a node is the first, last, or whether the list is empty,
without having to first retrieve the node.

Signed-off-by: Kaitao Cheng <chengkaitao@kylinos.cn>
---
 kernel/bpf/helpers.c  | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 11 +++++++++--
 2 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
index 740b53024283..3d22b6080185 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
@@ -2538,6 +2538,41 @@ __bpf_kfunc int bpf_list_add_impl(struct bpf_list_head *head,
 	return -EINVAL;
 }
 
+__bpf_kfunc bool bpf_list_node_is_edge(struct bpf_list_head *head,
+				       struct bpf_list_node *node, bool is_first)
+{
+	struct list_head *h = (struct list_head *)head, *edge;
+	struct bpf_list_node_kern *n = (struct bpf_list_node_kern *)node;
+
+	/* 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);
+
+	if (list_empty(h))
+		return false;
+
+	if (READ_ONCE(n->owner) != head)
+		return false;
+
+	edge = is_first ? h->next : h->prev;
+	return edge == &n->list_head;
+}
+
+__bpf_kfunc bool bpf_list_empty(struct bpf_list_head *head)
+{
+	struct list_head *h = (struct list_head *)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 list_empty(h);
+}
+
 __bpf_kfunc struct bpf_rb_node *bpf_rbtree_remove(struct bpf_rb_root *root,
 						  struct bpf_rb_node *node)
 {
@@ -4608,6 +4643,8 @@ 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_list_add_impl)
+BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_list_node_is_edge)
+BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_list_empty)
 BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_task_acquire, KF_ACQUIRE | KF_RCU | KF_RET_NULL)
 BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_task_release, KF_RELEASE)
 BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_rbtree_remove, KF_ACQUIRE | KF_RET_NULL)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index e458cf3b1dd1..d133d18aa0cc 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -12465,6 +12465,8 @@ enum special_kfunc_type {
 	KF_bpf_list_front,
 	KF_bpf_list_back,
 	KF_bpf_list_add_impl,
+	KF_bpf_list_node_is_edge,
+	KF_bpf_list_empty,
 	KF_bpf_cast_to_kern_ctx,
 	KF_bpf_rdonly_cast,
 	KF_bpf_rcu_read_lock,
@@ -12527,6 +12529,8 @@ BTF_ID(func, bpf_list_del)
 BTF_ID(func, bpf_list_front)
 BTF_ID(func, bpf_list_back)
 BTF_ID(func, bpf_list_add_impl)
+BTF_ID(func, bpf_list_node_is_edge)
+BTF_ID(func, bpf_list_empty)
 BTF_ID(func, bpf_cast_to_kern_ctx)
 BTF_ID(func, bpf_rdonly_cast)
 BTF_ID(func, bpf_rcu_read_lock)
@@ -13003,7 +13007,9 @@ static bool is_bpf_list_api_kfunc(u32 btf_id)
 	       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] ||
-	       btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_add_impl];
+	       btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_add_impl] ||
+	       btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_node_is_edge] ||
+	       btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_empty];
 }
 
 static bool is_bpf_rbtree_api_kfunc(u32 btf_id)
@@ -13126,7 +13132,8 @@ static bool check_kfunc_is_graph_node_api(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 		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_del] ||
-		       kfunc_btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_add_impl]);
+		       kfunc_btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_add_impl] ||
+		       kfunc_btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_node_is_edge]);
 		break;
 	case BPF_RB_NODE:
 		ret = (kfunc_btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_remove] ||
-- 
2.50.1 (Apple Git-155)

Re: [PATCH v6 3/5] bpf: Add bpf_list_is_edge/empty kfuncs

[bot+bpf-ci]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 845 bytes --]

> Add three kfuncs for BPF linked list queries:
> - bpf_list_node_is_edge(head, node, is_first): true if node is the first
>   (when is_first is true) or the last (when is_first is false) in the list.
> - bpf_list_empty(head): true if the list has no entries.

The commit message says "three kfuncs" but the description lists two
and the patch adds two (bpf_list_node_is_edge and bpf_list_empty).
It looks like this is a leftover from v5 where there were three
separate functions (bpf_list_is_first, bpf_list_is_last,
bpf_list_empty) before they were consolidated into two. Should this
say "two kfuncs"?


---
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/22674350640

Re: [PATCH v6 3/5] bpf: Add bpf_list_is_edge/empty kfuncs

[Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi]

On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 at 16:34, <bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> > Add three kfuncs for BPF linked list queries:
> > - bpf_list_node_is_edge(head, node, is_first): true if node is the first
> >   (when is_first is true) or the last (when is_first is false) in the list.
> > - bpf_list_empty(head): true if the list has no entries.
>
> The commit message says "three kfuncs" but the description lists two
> and the patch adds two (bpf_list_node_is_edge and bpf_list_empty).
> It looks like this is a leftover from v5 where there were three
> separate functions (bpf_list_is_first, bpf_list_is_last,
> bpf_list_empty) before they were consolidated into two. Should this
> say "two kfuncs"?
>

I have no idea why you decided to combine this, there isn't any
indication in the changelog, but it looked fine in previous versions.
It pairs well with bpf_list_{first,last}. I would prefer going with
separate kfuncs (is_first, is_last). Please also don't skip addressing
feedback from previous versions.
E.g. https://lore.kernel.org/all/875x7bzkz2.fsf@gmail.com suggested
using list_is_first/list_is_last.

>
> ---
> 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/22674350640

[PATCH v6 4/5] selftests/bpf: Add test cases for bpf_list_del/add/is_edge/empty

[Chengkaitao]

From: Kaitao Cheng <chengkaitao@kylinos.cn>

Extend the refcounted_kptr test: add a node to both an rbtree and a
list, retrieve the node from the rbtree to obtain the node pointer,
then add a new node after the first in the list, and finally use
bpf_list_del to remove both nodes.

The test asserts that the list is non-empty after insert, asserts the
first and last nodes after bpf_list_add, and asserts that the list is
empty after removing both nodes.

To verify the validity of bpf_list_del/add, the test also expects the
verifier to reject calls to bpf_list_del/add made without holding the
spin_lock.

Signed-off-by: Kaitao Cheng <chengkaitao@kylinos.cn>
---
 .../testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_experimental.h  |  39 ++++
 .../selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr.c     | 182 ++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 221 insertions(+)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_experimental.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_experimental.h
index 4b7210c318dd..d5f42ed69166 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_experimental.h
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_experimental.h
@@ -99,6 +99,45 @@ extern struct bpf_list_node *bpf_list_pop_front(struct bpf_list_head *head) __ks
  */
 extern struct bpf_list_node *bpf_list_pop_back(struct bpf_list_head *head) __ksym;
 
+/* Description
+ *	Remove 'node' from the BPF linked list with head 'head'.
+ *	The node must be in the list. Caller receives ownership of the
+ *	removed node and must release it with bpf_obj_drop.
+ * Returns
+ *	Pointer to the removed bpf_list_node, or NULL if 'node' is NULL
+ *	or not in the list.
+ */
+extern struct bpf_list_node *bpf_list_del(struct bpf_list_head *head,
+					  struct bpf_list_node *node) __ksym;
+
+/* Description
+ *	Insert 'new' after 'prev' in the BPF linked list with head 'head'.
+ *	The bpf_spin_lock protecting the list must be held. 'prev' must already
+ *	be in that list; 'new' must not be in any list. The 'meta' and 'off'
+ *	parameters are rewritten by the verifier, no need for BPF programs to
+ *	set them.
+ * Returns
+ *	0 on success, -EINVAL if head is NULL, prev is not in the list with head,
+ *	or new is already in a list.
+ */
+extern int bpf_list_add_impl(struct bpf_list_head *head, struct bpf_list_node *new,
+			     struct bpf_list_node *prev, void *meta, __u64 off) __ksym;
+
+/* Convenience macro to wrap over bpf_list_add_impl */
+#define bpf_list_add(head, new, prev) bpf_list_add_impl(head, new, prev, NULL, 0)
+
+/* Description
+ *	Return true if 'node' is the first (when 'is_first' is true) or the last
+ *	(when 'is_first' is false) node in the list with head 'head'.
+ */
+extern bool bpf_list_node_is_edge(struct bpf_list_head *head,
+				  struct bpf_list_node *node, bool is_first) __ksym;
+
+/* Description
+ *	Return true if the list with head 'head' has no entries.
+ */
+extern bool bpf_list_empty(struct bpf_list_head *head) __ksym;
+
 /* Description
  *	Remove 'node' from rbtree with root 'root'
  * Returns
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr.c
index 1aca85d86aeb..aca201f9fb56 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr.c
@@ -367,6 +367,188 @@ long insert_rbtree_and_stash__del_tree_##rem_tree(void *ctx)		\
 INSERT_STASH_READ(true, "insert_stash_read: remove from tree");
 INSERT_STASH_READ(false, "insert_stash_read: don't remove from tree");
 
+/* Insert one node in tree and list, remove it from tree, add a second node
+ * after it with bpf_list_add, check bpf_list_node_is_edge/empty, then
+ * remove both nodes from list via bpf_list_del.
+ */
+SEC("tc")
+__description("list_add_del_and_check: test bpf_list_add/del/is_first/is_last/empty")
+__success __retval(0)
+long list_add_del_and_check(void *ctx)
+{
+	long err = 0;
+	struct bpf_rb_node *rb;
+	struct bpf_list_node *l, *l_1;
+	struct node_data *n, *n_1, *m_1;
+
+	err = __insert_in_tree_and_list(&head, &root, &lock);
+	if (err)
+		return err;
+
+	bpf_spin_lock(&lock);
+	if (bpf_list_empty(&head)) {
+		bpf_spin_unlock(&lock);
+		return -7;
+	}
+
+	rb = bpf_rbtree_first(&root);
+	if (!rb) {
+		bpf_spin_unlock(&lock);
+		return -4;
+	}
+
+	rb = bpf_rbtree_remove(&root, rb);
+	bpf_spin_unlock(&lock);
+	if (!rb)
+		return -5;
+
+	n = container_of(rb, struct node_data, r);
+	n_1 = bpf_obj_new(typeof(*n_1));
+	if (!n_1) {
+		bpf_obj_drop(n);
+		return -1;
+	}
+	m_1 = bpf_refcount_acquire(n_1);
+	if (!m_1) {
+		bpf_obj_drop(n);
+		bpf_obj_drop(n_1);
+		return -1;
+	}
+
+	bpf_spin_lock(&lock);
+	if (bpf_list_add(&head, &n_1->l, &n->l)) {
+		bpf_spin_unlock(&lock);
+		bpf_obj_drop(n);
+		bpf_obj_drop(m_1);
+		return -8;
+	}
+
+	if (!bpf_list_node_is_edge(&head, &n->l, true) ||
+	    !bpf_list_node_is_edge(&head, &m_1->l, false)) {
+		bpf_spin_unlock(&lock);
+		bpf_obj_drop(n);
+		bpf_obj_drop(m_1);
+		return -9;
+	}
+
+	l = bpf_list_del(&head, &n->l);
+	l_1 = bpf_list_del(&head, &m_1->l);
+	bpf_spin_unlock(&lock);
+	bpf_obj_drop(n);
+	bpf_obj_drop(m_1);
+
+	if (l)
+		bpf_obj_drop(container_of(l, struct node_data, l));
+	else
+		err = -6;
+
+	if (l_1)
+		bpf_obj_drop(container_of(l_1, struct node_data, l));
+	else
+		err = -6;
+
+	bpf_spin_lock(&lock);
+	if (!bpf_list_empty(&head))
+		err = -7;
+	bpf_spin_unlock(&lock);
+	return err;
+}
+
+SEC("?tc")
+__failure __msg("bpf_spin_lock at off=32 must be held for bpf_list_head")
+long list_del_without_lock_fail(void *ctx)
+{
+	struct bpf_rb_node *rb;
+	struct bpf_list_node *l;
+	struct node_data *n;
+
+	bpf_spin_lock(&lock);
+	rb = bpf_rbtree_first(&root);
+	if (!rb) {
+		bpf_spin_unlock(&lock);
+		return -4;
+	}
+
+	rb = bpf_rbtree_remove(&root, rb);
+	bpf_spin_unlock(&lock);
+	if (!rb)
+		return -5;
+
+	n = container_of(rb, struct node_data, r);
+	l = bpf_list_del(&head, &n->l);
+	bpf_obj_drop(n);
+	if (!l)
+		return -6;
+
+	bpf_obj_drop(container_of(l, struct node_data, l));
+	return 0;
+}
+
+SEC("?tc")
+__failure __msg("bpf_spin_lock at off=32 must be held for bpf_list_head")
+long list_add_without_lock_fail(void *ctx)
+{
+	long err = 0;
+	struct bpf_rb_node *rb;
+	struct bpf_list_node *l, *l_1;
+	struct node_data *n, *n_1, *m_1;
+
+	err = __insert_in_tree_and_list(&head, &root, &lock);
+	if (err)
+		return err;
+
+	bpf_spin_lock(&lock);
+	rb = bpf_rbtree_first(&root);
+	if (!rb) {
+		bpf_spin_unlock(&lock);
+		return -4;
+	}
+
+	rb = bpf_rbtree_remove(&root, rb);
+	bpf_spin_unlock(&lock);
+	if (!rb)
+		return -5;
+
+	n = container_of(rb, struct node_data, r);
+	n_1 = bpf_obj_new(typeof(*n_1));
+	if (!n_1) {
+		bpf_obj_drop(n);
+		return -1;
+	}
+	m_1 = bpf_refcount_acquire(n_1);
+	if (!m_1) {
+		bpf_obj_drop(n);
+		bpf_obj_drop(n_1);
+		return -1;
+	}
+
+	/* Intentionally no lock: verifier should reject bpf_list_add without lock */
+	if (bpf_list_add(&head, &n_1->l, &n->l)) {
+		bpf_obj_drop(n);
+		bpf_obj_drop(m_1);
+		return -8;
+	}
+
+	bpf_spin_lock(&lock);
+	l = bpf_list_del(&head, &n->l);
+	l_1 = bpf_list_del(&head, &m_1->l);
+	bpf_spin_unlock(&lock);
+	bpf_obj_drop(n);
+	bpf_obj_drop(m_1);
+
+	if (l)
+		bpf_obj_drop(container_of(l, struct node_data, l));
+	else
+		err = -6;
+
+	if (l_1)
+		bpf_obj_drop(container_of(l_1, struct node_data, l));
+	else
+		err = -6;
+
+	return err;
+}
+
 SEC("tc")
 __success
 long rbtree_refcounted_node_ref_escapes(void *ctx)
-- 
2.50.1 (Apple Git-155)

Re: [PATCH v6 4/5] selftests/bpf: Add test cases for bpf_list_del/add/is_edge/empty

[Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi]

On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 at 15:51, Chengkaitao <pilgrimtao@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Kaitao Cheng <chengkaitao@kylinos.cn>
>
> Extend the refcounted_kptr test: add a node to both an rbtree and a
> list, retrieve the node from the rbtree to obtain the node pointer,
> then add a new node after the first in the list, and finally use
> bpf_list_del to remove both nodes.
>
> The test asserts that the list is non-empty after insert, asserts the
> first and last nodes after bpf_list_add, and asserts that the list is
> empty after removing both nodes.
>
> To verify the validity of bpf_list_del/add, the test also expects the
> verifier to reject calls to bpf_list_del/add made without holding the
> spin_lock.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kaitao Cheng <chengkaitao@kylinos.cn>
> ---

No reply to or feedback addressed from
https://lore.kernel.org/all/87342fzjq0.fsf@gmail.com.
Please don't respin without acting on it, or explaining why you chose
to skip it.

>  .../testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_experimental.h  |  39 ++++
>  .../selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr.c     | 182 ++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 221 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_experimental.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_experimental.h
> index 4b7210c318dd..d5f42ed69166 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_experimental.h
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_experimental.h
> @@ -99,6 +99,45 @@ extern struct bpf_list_node *bpf_list_pop_front(struct bpf_list_head *head) __ks
>   */
>  extern struct bpf_list_node *bpf_list_pop_back(struct bpf_list_head *head) __ksym;
>
> +/* Description
> + *     Remove 'node' from the BPF linked list with head 'head'.
> + *     The node must be in the list. Caller receives ownership of the
> + *     removed node and must release it with bpf_obj_drop.
> + * Returns
> + *     Pointer to the removed bpf_list_node, or NULL if 'node' is NULL
> + *     or not in the list.
> + */
> +extern struct bpf_list_node *bpf_list_del(struct bpf_list_head *head,
> +                                         struct bpf_list_node *node) __ksym;
> +
> +/* Description
> + *     Insert 'new' after 'prev' in the BPF linked list with head 'head'.
> + *     The bpf_spin_lock protecting the list must be held. 'prev' must already
> + *     be in that list; 'new' must not be in any list. The 'meta' and 'off'
> + *     parameters are rewritten by the verifier, no need for BPF programs to
> + *     set them.
> + * Returns
> + *     0 on success, -EINVAL if head is NULL, prev is not in the list with head,
> + *     or new is already in a list.
> + */
> +extern int bpf_list_add_impl(struct bpf_list_head *head, struct bpf_list_node *new,
> +                            struct bpf_list_node *prev, void *meta, __u64 off) __ksym;
> +
> +/* Convenience macro to wrap over bpf_list_add_impl */
> +#define bpf_list_add(head, new, prev) bpf_list_add_impl(head, new, prev, NULL, 0)
> +
> +/* Description
> + *     Return true if 'node' is the first (when 'is_first' is true) or the last
> + *     (when 'is_first' is false) node in the list with head 'head'.
> + */
> +extern bool bpf_list_node_is_edge(struct bpf_list_head *head,
> +                                 struct bpf_list_node *node, bool is_first) __ksym;
> +
> +/* Description
> + *     Return true if the list with head 'head' has no entries.
> + */
> +extern bool bpf_list_empty(struct bpf_list_head *head) __ksym;
> +

Except the macro, the rest can come from vmlinux.h.

>  /* Description
>   *     Remove 'node' from rbtree with root 'root'
>   * Returns
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr.c
> index 1aca85d86aeb..aca201f9fb56 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr.c
> @@ -367,6 +367,188 @@ long insert_rbtree_and_stash__del_tree_##rem_tree(void *ctx)              \
>  INSERT_STASH_READ(true, "insert_stash_read: remove from tree");
>  INSERT_STASH_READ(false, "insert_stash_read: don't remove from tree");
>
> +/* Insert one node in tree and list, remove it from tree, add a second node
> + * after it with bpf_list_add, check bpf_list_node_is_edge/empty, then
> + * remove both nodes from list via bpf_list_del.
> + */

Incorrect comment style.

> +[...]
>

[PATCH v6 5/5] bpf/verifier: refactor kfunc checks to table-driven approach

[Chengkaitao]

From: Kaitao Cheng <chengkaitao@kylinos.cn>

Replace per-kfunc btf_id chains in list/rbtree/res_lock and graph node
checks with btf_id_in_kfunc_table() and static kfunc tables for easier
maintenance.

Signed-off-by: Kaitao Cheng <chengkaitao@kylinos.cn>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 93 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 64 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index d133d18aa0cc..25961cf83a67 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -12600,6 +12600,60 @@ BTF_ID(func, bpf_session_is_return)
 BTF_ID(func, bpf_stream_vprintk)
 BTF_ID(func, bpf_stream_print_stack)
 
+static const enum special_kfunc_type bpf_list_api_kfuncs[] = {
+	KF_bpf_list_push_front_impl,
+	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_list_add_impl,
+	KF_bpf_list_node_is_edge,
+	KF_bpf_list_empty,
+};
+
+/* Kfuncs that take a list node argument (bpf_list_node *). */
+static const enum special_kfunc_type bpf_list_node_api_kfuncs[] = {
+	KF_bpf_list_push_front_impl,
+	KF_bpf_list_push_back_impl,
+	KF_bpf_list_del,
+	KF_bpf_list_add_impl,
+	KF_bpf_list_node_is_edge,
+};
+
+/* Kfuncs that take an rbtree node argument (bpf_rb_node *). */
+static const enum special_kfunc_type bpf_rbtree_node_api_kfuncs[] = {
+	KF_bpf_rbtree_remove,
+	KF_bpf_rbtree_add_impl,
+	KF_bpf_rbtree_left,
+	KF_bpf_rbtree_right,
+};
+
+static const enum special_kfunc_type bpf_rbtree_api_kfuncs[] = {
+	KF_bpf_rbtree_add_impl,
+	KF_bpf_rbtree_remove,
+	KF_bpf_rbtree_first,
+	KF_bpf_rbtree_root,
+	KF_bpf_rbtree_left,
+	KF_bpf_rbtree_right,
+};
+
+static const enum special_kfunc_type bpf_res_spin_lock_kfuncs[] = {
+	KF_bpf_res_spin_lock,
+	KF_bpf_res_spin_unlock,
+	KF_bpf_res_spin_lock_irqsave,
+	KF_bpf_res_spin_unlock_irqrestore,
+};
+
+static bool btf_id_in_kfunc_table(u32 btf_id, const enum special_kfunc_type *kfuncs, int n)
+{
+	for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
+		if (btf_id == special_kfunc_list[kfuncs[i]])
+			return true;
+	return false;
+}
+
 static bool is_task_work_add_kfunc(u32 func_id)
 {
 	return func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_task_work_schedule_signal] ||
@@ -13000,26 +13054,14 @@ static int check_reg_allocation_locked(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_
 
 static bool is_bpf_list_api_kfunc(u32 btf_id)
 {
-	return btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_push_front_impl] ||
-	       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] ||
-	       btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_add_impl] ||
-	       btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_node_is_edge] ||
-	       btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_empty];
+	return btf_id_in_kfunc_table(btf_id, bpf_list_api_kfuncs,
+				     ARRAY_SIZE(bpf_list_api_kfuncs));
 }
 
 static bool is_bpf_rbtree_api_kfunc(u32 btf_id)
 {
-	return btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_add_impl] ||
-	       btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_remove] ||
-	       btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_first] ||
-	       btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_root] ||
-	       btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_left] ||
-	       btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_right];
+	return btf_id_in_kfunc_table(btf_id, bpf_rbtree_api_kfuncs,
+				     ARRAY_SIZE(bpf_rbtree_api_kfuncs));
 }
 
 static bool is_bpf_iter_num_api_kfunc(u32 btf_id)
@@ -13037,10 +13079,8 @@ static bool is_bpf_graph_api_kfunc(u32 btf_id)
 
 static bool is_bpf_res_spin_lock_kfunc(u32 btf_id)
 {
-	return btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_res_spin_lock] ||
-	       btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_res_spin_unlock] ||
-	       btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_res_spin_lock_irqsave] ||
-	       btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_res_spin_unlock_irqrestore];
+	return btf_id_in_kfunc_table(btf_id, bpf_res_spin_lock_kfuncs,
+				    ARRAY_SIZE(bpf_res_spin_lock_kfuncs));
 }
 
 static bool is_bpf_arena_kfunc(u32 btf_id)
@@ -13129,17 +13169,12 @@ 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_del] ||
-		       kfunc_btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_add_impl] ||
-		       kfunc_btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_node_is_edge]);
+		ret = btf_id_in_kfunc_table(kfunc_btf_id, bpf_list_node_api_kfuncs,
+					    ARRAY_SIZE(bpf_list_node_api_kfuncs));
 		break;
 	case BPF_RB_NODE:
-		ret = (kfunc_btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_remove] ||
-		       kfunc_btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_add_impl] ||
-		       kfunc_btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_left] ||
-		       kfunc_btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_right]);
+		ret = btf_id_in_kfunc_table(kfunc_btf_id, bpf_rbtree_node_api_kfuncs,
+					    ARRAY_SIZE(bpf_rbtree_node_api_kfuncs));
 		break;
 	default:
 		verbose(env, "verifier internal error: unexpected graph node argument type %s\n",
-- 
2.50.1 (Apple Git-155)

Re: [PATCH v6 5/5] bpf/verifier: refactor kfunc checks to table-driven approach

[bot+bpf-ci]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 841 bytes --]

> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c

[ ... ]

> static bool is_bpf_res_spin_lock_kfunc(u32 btf_id)
> {
>+	return btf_id_in_kfunc_table(btf_id, bpf_res_spin_lock_kfuncs,
>+				    ARRAY_SIZE(bpf_res_spin_lock_kfuncs));
>  }

The continuation line here has one fewer space than the other three call
sites (is_bpf_list_api_kfunc, is_bpf_rbtree_api_kfunc, and
check_kfunc_is_graph_node_api), so ARRAY_SIZE doesn't align to the
opening parenthesis of btf_id_in_kfunc_table(). Should this be aligned
to match the others?


---
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/22674350640

Re: [PATCH v6 5/5] bpf/verifier: refactor kfunc checks to table-driven approach

[Leon Hwang]

NIT on the subject prefix: instead of bpf/verifier, it should be one of
bpf, libbpf, selftests/bpf, bpftool, and "bpf, x86/arm64".

So, the subject can be "bpf: refactor kfunc checks using table-driven
approach in verifier".

Thanks,
Leon

On 2026/3/4 22:34, Chengkaitao wrote:
> From: Kaitao Cheng <chengkaitao@kylinos.cn>
> 
> Replace per-kfunc btf_id chains in list/rbtree/res_lock and graph node
> checks with btf_id_in_kfunc_table() and static kfunc tables for easier
> maintenance.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kaitao Cheng <chengkaitao@kylinos.cn>
> ---
>  kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 93 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>  1 file changed, 64 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index d133d18aa0cc..25961cf83a67 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -12600,6 +12600,60 @@ BTF_ID(func, bpf_session_is_return)
>  BTF_ID(func, bpf_stream_vprintk)
>  BTF_ID(func, bpf_stream_print_stack)
>  
> +static const enum special_kfunc_type bpf_list_api_kfuncs[] = {
> +	KF_bpf_list_push_front_impl,
> +	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_list_add_impl,
> +	KF_bpf_list_node_is_edge,
> +	KF_bpf_list_empty,
> +};
> +
> +/* Kfuncs that take a list node argument (bpf_list_node *). */
> +static const enum special_kfunc_type bpf_list_node_api_kfuncs[] = {
> +	KF_bpf_list_push_front_impl,
> +	KF_bpf_list_push_back_impl,
> +	KF_bpf_list_del,
> +	KF_bpf_list_add_impl,
> +	KF_bpf_list_node_is_edge,
> +};
> +
> +/* Kfuncs that take an rbtree node argument (bpf_rb_node *). */
> +static const enum special_kfunc_type bpf_rbtree_node_api_kfuncs[] = {
> +	KF_bpf_rbtree_remove,
> +	KF_bpf_rbtree_add_impl,
> +	KF_bpf_rbtree_left,
> +	KF_bpf_rbtree_right,
> +};
> +
> +static const enum special_kfunc_type bpf_rbtree_api_kfuncs[] = {
> +	KF_bpf_rbtree_add_impl,
> +	KF_bpf_rbtree_remove,
> +	KF_bpf_rbtree_first,
> +	KF_bpf_rbtree_root,
> +	KF_bpf_rbtree_left,
> +	KF_bpf_rbtree_right,
> +};
> +
> +static const enum special_kfunc_type bpf_res_spin_lock_kfuncs[] = {
> +	KF_bpf_res_spin_lock,
> +	KF_bpf_res_spin_unlock,
> +	KF_bpf_res_spin_lock_irqsave,
> +	KF_bpf_res_spin_unlock_irqrestore,
> +};
> +
> +static bool btf_id_in_kfunc_table(u32 btf_id, const enum special_kfunc_type *kfuncs, int n)
> +{
> +	for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
> +		if (btf_id == special_kfunc_list[kfuncs[i]])
> +			return true;
> +	return false;
> +}
> +
>  static bool is_task_work_add_kfunc(u32 func_id)
>  {
>  	return func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_task_work_schedule_signal] ||
> @@ -13000,26 +13054,14 @@ static int check_reg_allocation_locked(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_
>  
>  static bool is_bpf_list_api_kfunc(u32 btf_id)
>  {
> -	return btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_push_front_impl] ||
> -	       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] ||
> -	       btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_add_impl] ||
> -	       btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_node_is_edge] ||
> -	       btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_empty];
> +	return btf_id_in_kfunc_table(btf_id, bpf_list_api_kfuncs,
> +				     ARRAY_SIZE(bpf_list_api_kfuncs));
>  }
>  
>  static bool is_bpf_rbtree_api_kfunc(u32 btf_id)
>  {
> -	return btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_add_impl] ||
> -	       btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_remove] ||
> -	       btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_first] ||
> -	       btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_root] ||
> -	       btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_left] ||
> -	       btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_right];
> +	return btf_id_in_kfunc_table(btf_id, bpf_rbtree_api_kfuncs,
> +				     ARRAY_SIZE(bpf_rbtree_api_kfuncs));
>  }
>  
>  static bool is_bpf_iter_num_api_kfunc(u32 btf_id)
> @@ -13037,10 +13079,8 @@ static bool is_bpf_graph_api_kfunc(u32 btf_id)
>  
>  static bool is_bpf_res_spin_lock_kfunc(u32 btf_id)
>  {
> -	return btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_res_spin_lock] ||
> -	       btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_res_spin_unlock] ||
> -	       btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_res_spin_lock_irqsave] ||
> -	       btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_res_spin_unlock_irqrestore];
> +	return btf_id_in_kfunc_table(btf_id, bpf_res_spin_lock_kfuncs,
> +				    ARRAY_SIZE(bpf_res_spin_lock_kfuncs));
>  }
>  
>  static bool is_bpf_arena_kfunc(u32 btf_id)
> @@ -13129,17 +13169,12 @@ 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_del] ||
> -		       kfunc_btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_add_impl] ||
> -		       kfunc_btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_node_is_edge]);
> +		ret = btf_id_in_kfunc_table(kfunc_btf_id, bpf_list_node_api_kfuncs,
> +					    ARRAY_SIZE(bpf_list_node_api_kfuncs));
>  		break;
>  	case BPF_RB_NODE:
> -		ret = (kfunc_btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_remove] ||
> -		       kfunc_btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_add_impl] ||
> -		       kfunc_btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_left] ||
> -		       kfunc_btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_right]);
> +		ret = btf_id_in_kfunc_table(kfunc_btf_id, bpf_rbtree_node_api_kfuncs,
> +					    ARRAY_SIZE(bpf_rbtree_node_api_kfuncs));
>  		break;
>  	default:
>  		verbose(env, "verifier internal error: unexpected graph node argument type %s\n",

Re: [PATCH v6 0/5] bpf: Extend the bpf_list family of APIs

[Leon Hwang]

Hi Kaitao,

I think you should wait for some comments before sending the next revision.

The patch target is missing in subject: [PATCH bpf-next v6 ...

Thanks,
Leon

On 2026/3/4 22:34, Chengkaitao wrote:
> From: Kaitao Cheng <chengkaitao@kylinos.cn>
> 
> In BPF, a list can only be used to implement a stack structure.
> Due to an incomplete API set, only FIFO or LIFO operations are
> supported. The patches enhance the BPF list API, making it more
> list-like.
> 
> Four new kfuncs have been added:
> bpf_list_del: remove a node from the list
> bpf_list_add_impl: insert a node after a given list node
> bpf_list_node_is_edge: check if a node is the first or last in the list
> bpf_list_empty: check if the list is empty
> 
> refactor kfunc checks to table-driven approach, and add test cases for
> the aforementioned kfuncs.
> 
> Changes in v6:
> - Merge [patch v5 (2,4,6)/6] into [patch v6 4/5]
> - If list_head was 0-initialized, init it
> - refactor kfunc checks to table-driven approach
> 
> Changes in v5:
> - Fix bpf_obj leak on bpf_list_add_impl error
> 
> Changes in v4:
> - [patch v3 1/6] Revert to version v1
> - Change the parameters of bpf_list_add_impl to (head, new, prev, ...)
> 
> Changes in v3:
> - Add a new lock_rec member to struct bpf_reference_state for lock
>   holding detection.
> - Add test cases to verify that the verifier correctly restricts calls
>   to bpf_list_del when the spin_lock is not held.
> 
> Changes in v2:
> - Remove the head parameter from bpf_list_del
> - Add bpf_list_add/is_first/is_last/empty to API and test cases
> 
> Link to v5:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260304031606.43884-1-pilgrimtao@gmail.com/
> 
> Link to v4:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260303135219.33726-1-pilgrimtao@gmail.com/
> 
> Link to v3:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260302124028.82420-1-pilgrimtao@gmail.com/
> 
> Link to v2:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260225092651.94689-1-pilgrimtao@gmail.com/
> 
> Link to v1:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260209025250.55750-1-pilgrimtao@gmail.com/
> 
> Kaitao Cheng (5):
>   bpf: Introduce the bpf_list_del kfunc.
>   bpf: Add bpf_list_add_impl to insert node after a given list node
>   bpf: Add bpf_list_is_edge/empty kfuncs
>   selftests/bpf: Add test cases for bpf_list_del/add/is_edge/empty
>   bpf/verifier: refactor kfunc checks to table-driven approach
> 
>  kernel/bpf/helpers.c                          |  98 ++++++++++
>  kernel/bpf/verifier.c                         | 103 +++++++---
>  .../testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_experimental.h  |  39 ++++
>  .../selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr.c     | 182 ++++++++++++++++++
>  4 files changed, 398 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>