BPF List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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 v4 3/6] bpf: Inline bpf_iter_num_next() kfunc
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2026 13:36:23 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260729203633.213973-4-puranjay@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260729203633.213973-1-puranjay@kernel.org>

bpf_iter_num_next() is called on every iteration of a bpf_for() loop and
is the hot path of the numeric open-coded iterator. It only advances the
on-stack iterator state and returns a pointer to it, so open-coding it in
the verifier removes a function call from each loop iteration.

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; the returned pointer to s->cur is R1 itself since s->cur is
the first member.

s->cur and s->end are int, so the kfunc's s->cur + 1 >= s->end test is a
signed 32-bit comparison of (s->cur + 1) against s->end, with s->cur + 1
computed as a 32-bit int. Sign-extending both sides of a comparison of
two int values does not change its result, so the inlined code uses a
32-bit compare and needs no sign extension.

Signed-off-by: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@kernel.org>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 7400515ae1296..3a3d096f3966e 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -19810,6 +19810,34 @@ static int inline_bpf_iter_num_new(struct bpf_insn *insn_buf)
 	return i;
 }
 
+/*
+ * Inline bpf_iter_num_next(). R1 holds the pointer to the iterator. Keep in sync with the
+ * kfunc in kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c.
+ */
+static int inline_bpf_iter_num_next(struct bpf_insn *insn_buf)
+{
+	int i = 0;
+
+	/*
+	 * s->cur and s->end are int, so the kfunc's s->cur + 1 >= s->end check is a signed 32-bit
+	 * comparison of (s->cur + 1) against s->end and needs no sign extension.
+	 */
+	insn_buf[i++] = BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, 0);
+	insn_buf[i++] = BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, 1);
+	insn_buf[i++] = BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 4);
+	/* if ((s32)(s->cur + 1) >= (s32)s->end) goto done; */
+	insn_buf[i++] = BPF_JMP32_REG(BPF_JSGE, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2, 3);
+	/* s->cur++; return &s->cur; */
+	insn_buf[i++] = BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, 0);
+	insn_buf[i++] = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1);
+	insn_buf[i++] = BPF_JMP_A(2);
+	/* done: s->cur = s->end = 0; return NULL; */
+	insn_buf[i++] = BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, 0, 0);
+	insn_buf[i++] = BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0);
+
+	return i;
+}
+
 int bpf_fixup_kfunc_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn,
 		     struct bpf_insn *insn_buf, int insn_idx, int *cnt)
 {
@@ -19941,6 +19969,8 @@ int bpf_fixup_kfunc_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn,
 		*cnt = 6;
 	} else if (desc->func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_iter_num_new]) {
 		*cnt = inline_bpf_iter_num_new(insn_buf);
+	} else if (desc->func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_iter_num_next]) {
+		*cnt = inline_bpf_iter_num_next(insn_buf);
 	}
 
 	if (env->insn_aux_data[insn_idx].arg_prog) {
-- 
2.53.0-Meta


  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-07-29 20:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-07-29 20:36 [PATCH bpf-next v4 0/6] bpf: Inline the numeric open-coded iterator kfuncs Puranjay Mohan
2026-07-29 20:36 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 1/6] bpf: Correct the overflow check comment in bpf_iter_num_next() Puranjay Mohan
2026-07-29 20:49   ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-29 21:32   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-07-29 20:36 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 2/6] bpf: Inline bpf_iter_num_new() kfunc Puranjay Mohan
2026-07-29 20:36 ` Puranjay Mohan [this message]
2026-07-29 20:36 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 4/6] bpf: Inline bpf_iter_num_destroy() as a no-op Puranjay Mohan
2026-07-29 20:36 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 5/6] selftests/bpf: Verify inlined numeric iterator shape with __xlated Puranjay Mohan
2026-07-29 20:36 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 6/6] selftests/bpf: Add bpf_for() benchmark Puranjay Mohan
2026-07-29 21:50   ` bot+bpf-ci

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=20260729203633.213973-4-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