From: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@kernel.org>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@kernel.org>,
"Alexei Starovoitov" <ast@kernel.org>,
"Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
"Andrii Nakryiko" <andrii@kernel.org>,
"Martin KaFai Lau" <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
"Eduard Zingerman" <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
"Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi" <memxor@gmail.com>,
"Song Liu" <song@kernel.org>,
"Yonghong Song" <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next 1/4] bpf: Inline bpf_iter_num_new() kfunc
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2026 06:04:23 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260715130430.318421-2-puranjay@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260715130430.318421-1-puranjay@kernel.org>
The numeric iterator kfuncs bpf_iter_num_{new,next,destroy}() back the
open-coded iterator macro bpf_for() and are emitted as regular kfunc
calls by the verifier. bpf_iter_num_new() is small and only touches the
on-stack iterator state, so the verifier can open-code it and avoid the
call overhead of setting up an iterator.
Inline it in bpf_fixup_kfunc_call() by replacing the call with an
equivalent instruction sequence. R1 holds the pointer to the on-stack
bpf_iter_num, while R2 and R3 hold the start and end arguments. The
(s64)end - (s64)start overflow check is emitted with sign-extending
moves; the rest of the arithmetic and the error paths mirror the kfunc
exactly, so a program that inspects the return value keeps observing the
same -EINVAL / -E2BIG / 0 results.
The emitted instructions are plain BPF and are handled by the
interpreter, so interpreter fallback stays correct and no jit_required
marking is needed.
Signed-off-by: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@kernel.org>
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 36 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index de816063ae63d..f578cebbade4f 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -19715,6 +19715,40 @@ static void __fixup_collection_insert_kfunc(struct bpf_insn_aux_data *insn_aux,
*cnt = 4;
}
+/*
+ * Inline bpf_iter_num_new(). R1 holds the pointer to the iterator, R2 and R3
+ * hold the (int) start and end arguments. Keep in sync with the kfunc in
+ * kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c.
+ */
+static int inline_bpf_iter_num_new(struct bpf_insn *insn_buf)
+{
+ /* if (start > end) goto einval; */
+ insn_buf[0] = BPF_JMP32_REG(BPF_JSGT, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_3, 9);
+ /* r0 = (s64)end - (s64)start; */
+ insn_buf[1] = BPF_MOVSX64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_3, 32);
+ insn_buf[2] = BPF_MOVSX64_REG(BPF_REG_4, BPF_REG_2, 32);
+ insn_buf[3] = BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_4);
+ /* if (r0 > BPF_MAX_LOOPS) goto e2big; */
+ insn_buf[4] = BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGT, BPF_REG_0, BPF_MAX_LOOPS, 8);
+ /* s->cur = start - 1; */
+ insn_buf[5] = BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -1);
+ insn_buf[6] = BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, 0);
+ /* s->end = end; */
+ insn_buf[7] = BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_3, 4);
+ /* return 0; */
+ insn_buf[8] = BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0);
+ insn_buf[9] = BPF_JMP_A(5);
+ /* einval: s->cur = s->end = 0; return -EINVAL; */
+ insn_buf[10] = BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, 0, 0);
+ insn_buf[11] = BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, -EINVAL);
+ insn_buf[12] = BPF_JMP_A(2);
+ /* e2big: s->cur = s->end = 0; return -E2BIG; */
+ insn_buf[13] = BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, 0, 0);
+ insn_buf[14] = BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, -E2BIG);
+
+ return 15;
+}
+
int bpf_fixup_kfunc_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn,
struct bpf_insn *insn_buf, int insn_idx, int *cnt)
{
@@ -19844,6 +19878,8 @@ int bpf_fixup_kfunc_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn,
insn_buf[4] = BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1);
insn_buf[5] = BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_NEG, BPF_REG_0, 0);
*cnt = 6;
+ } else if (desc->func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_iter_num_new]) {
+ *cnt = inline_bpf_iter_num_new(insn_buf);
}
if (env->insn_aux_data[insn_idx].arg_prog) {
--
2.53.0-Meta
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-15 13:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-15 13:04 [PATCH bpf-next 0/4] bpf: Inline the numeric open-coded iterator kfuncs Puranjay Mohan
2026-07-15 13:04 ` Puranjay Mohan [this message]
2026-07-15 13:33 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/4] bpf: Inline bpf_iter_num_new() kfunc sashiko-bot
2026-07-15 13:04 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/4] bpf: Inline bpf_iter_num_next() kfunc Puranjay Mohan
2026-07-15 13:04 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/4] bpf: Inline bpf_iter_num_destroy() kfunc Puranjay Mohan
2026-07-15 13:04 ` [PATCH bpf-next 4/4] selftests/bpf: Add bpf_for() benchmark Puranjay Mohan
2026-07-15 14:11 ` [PATCH bpf-next 0/4] bpf: Inline the numeric open-coded iterator kfuncs Leon Hwang
2026-07-15 14:15 ` Puranjay Mohan
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=20260715130430.318421-2-puranjay@kernel.org \
--to=puranjay@kernel.org \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--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