From: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v3 03/15] bpf: Rename bpf_subprog_info::arg_cnt to arg_slot_cnt
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2026 08:49:29 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260911154929.2006014-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260911154914.2004336-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Rename arg_cnt to arg_slot_cnt, as a later patch gives a parameter that
takes two argument registers, an __int128 or a 16-byte aggregate, two
slots. No functional change.
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
---
include/linux/bpf_verifier.h | 6 +++---
kernel/bpf/btf.c | 2 +-
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 19 +++++++++++--------
.../bpf/progs/verifier_stack_arg_order.c | 4 ++--
4 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
index 9727df5af83a..edb904424aba 100644
--- a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
+++ b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
@@ -828,7 +828,7 @@ struct bpf_subprog_info {
bool keep_fastcall_stack: 1;
bool changes_pkt_data: 1;
bool might_sleep: 1;
- u8 arg_cnt:4;
+ u8 arg_slot_cnt:4;
enum priv_stack_mode priv_stack_mode;
struct bpf_subprog_arg_info args[MAX_BPF_FUNC_ARGS];
@@ -838,8 +838,8 @@ struct bpf_subprog_info {
static inline u16 bpf_in_stack_arg_cnt(const struct bpf_subprog_info *sub)
{
- if (sub->arg_cnt > MAX_BPF_FUNC_REG_ARGS)
- return sub->arg_cnt - MAX_BPF_FUNC_REG_ARGS;
+ if (sub->arg_slot_cnt > MAX_BPF_FUNC_REG_ARGS)
+ return sub->arg_slot_cnt - MAX_BPF_FUNC_REG_ARGS;
return 0;
}
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/btf.c b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
index 31057c8f3a7c..01ec2b40f376 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/btf.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
@@ -8081,7 +8081,7 @@ int btf_prepare_func_args(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int subprog)
}
args = (const struct btf_param *)(t + 1);
nargs = btf_type_vlen(t);
- sub->arg_cnt = nargs;
+ sub->arg_slot_cnt = nargs;
if (nargs > MAX_BPF_FUNC_ARGS) {
bpf_log(log, "kernel supports at most %d parameters, function %s has %d\n",
MAX_BPF_FUNC_ARGS, tname, nargs);
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index fed576b8f7fe..e8f4c17fb27d 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -9772,7 +9772,7 @@ static int btf_check_func_arg_match(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int subprog,
ret = btf_prepare_func_args(env, subprog);
if (ret) {
if (bpf_in_stack_arg_cnt(sub) > 0) {
- err = check_outgoing_stack_args(env, caller, sub->arg_cnt,
+ err = check_outgoing_stack_args(env, caller, sub->arg_slot_cnt,
bpf_subprog_name(env, subprog),
NULL, NULL);
if (err)
@@ -9784,7 +9784,7 @@ static int btf_check_func_arg_match(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int subprog,
func = btf_type_by_id(btf, env->prog->aux->func_info[subprog].type_id);
func_proto = btf_type_by_id(btf, func->type);
args = btf_params(func_proto);
- ret = check_outgoing_stack_args(env, caller, sub->arg_cnt,
+ ret = check_outgoing_stack_args(env, caller, sub->arg_slot_cnt,
bpf_subprog_name(env, subprog), btf, args);
if (ret)
return ret;
@@ -9792,7 +9792,7 @@ static int btf_check_func_arg_match(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int subprog,
/* check that BTF function arguments match actual types that the
* verifier sees.
*/
- for (i = 0; i < sub->arg_cnt; i++) {
+ for (i = 0; i < sub->arg_slot_cnt; i++) {
argno_t argno = argno_from_arg(i + 1);
struct bpf_reg_state *reg = get_func_arg_reg(caller, regs, i);
struct bpf_subprog_arg_info *arg = &sub->args[i];
@@ -19777,13 +19777,14 @@ static int do_check_common(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int subprog)
}
/* Also ensure the callback only has a single scalar argument. */
- if (sub->arg_cnt != 1 || sub->args[0].arg_type != ARG_ANYTHING) {
+ if (sub->arg_slot_cnt != 1 || sub->args[0].arg_type != ARG_ANYTHING) {
verbose(env, "exception cb only supports single integer argument\n");
ret = -EINVAL;
goto out;
}
}
- for (i = BPF_REG_1; i <= min_t(u32, sub->arg_cnt, MAX_BPF_FUNC_REG_ARGS); i++) {
+ for (i = BPF_REG_1;
+ i <= min_t(u32, sub->arg_slot_cnt, MAX_BPF_FUNC_REG_ARGS); i++) {
arg = &sub->args[i - BPF_REG_1];
reg = ®s[i];
@@ -19826,7 +19827,8 @@ static int do_check_common(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int subprog)
goto out;
}
}
- if (env->prog->type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_EXT && sub->arg_cnt > MAX_BPF_FUNC_REG_ARGS) {
+ if (env->prog->type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_EXT &&
+ sub->arg_slot_cnt > MAX_BPF_FUNC_REG_ARGS) {
verbose(env, "freplace programs with >%d args not supported yet\n",
MAX_BPF_FUNC_REG_ARGS);
ret = -EINVAL;
@@ -19839,9 +19841,10 @@ static int do_check_common(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int subprog)
*/
if (env->prog->aux->func_info_aux) {
ret = btf_prepare_func_args(env, 0);
- if (ret || sub->arg_cnt != 1 || sub->args[0].arg_type != ARG_PTR_TO_CTX) {
+ if (ret || sub->arg_slot_cnt != 1 ||
+ sub->args[0].arg_type != ARG_PTR_TO_CTX) {
env->prog->aux->func_info_aux[0].unreliable = true;
- sub->arg_cnt = 1;
+ sub->arg_slot_cnt = 1;
sub->stack_arg_cnt = 0;
}
}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_stack_arg_order.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_stack_arg_order.c
index 57f22691744a..ab1955852233 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_stack_arg_order.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_stack_arg_order.c
@@ -116,8 +116,8 @@ __naked void stack_arg_pruning_load_after_call(void)
/*
* "bad_ptr": the first arg is 'long *', which is not a recognized pointer
* type for static subprogs (not ctx, dynptr, or tagged). btf_prepare_func_args()
- * sets arg_cnt = 7 / stack_arg_cnt = 2, then fails with -EINVAL. The subprog
- * is marked unreliable but the call still proceeds for static subprogs.
+ * sets arg_slot_cnt = 7 / stack_arg_cnt = 2, then fails with -EINVAL. The
+ * subprog is marked unreliable but the call still proceeds for static subprogs.
*/
__noinline __used __naked
static void subprog_bad_ptr_7args(long *a, int b, int c, int d, int e, int f, int g)
--
2.52.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-11 15:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-11 15:49 [PATCH bpf-next v3 00/15] bpf: Support by-value struct and __int128 arguments Yonghong Song
2026-09-11 15:49 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 01/15] bpf: Read a kfunc's __sz argument only when it is in a register Yonghong Song
2026-09-11 15:49 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 02/15] selftests/bpf: Add a test for an __int128 by-value argument Yonghong Song
2026-09-11 16:47 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-12 17:07 ` Yonghong Song
2026-09-11 15:49 ` Yonghong Song [this message]
2026-09-11 15:49 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 04/15] bpf: Index global function arguments by argument slot Yonghong Song
2026-09-11 15:49 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 05/15] bpf: Support by-value struct arguments up to 16 bytes Yonghong Song
2026-09-11 15:49 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 06/15] bpf: Support __int128 as a by-value function argument Yonghong Song
2026-09-11 15:49 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 07/15] bpf: Rename bpf_call_summary::num_params to arg_slot_cnt Yonghong Song
2026-09-11 15:49 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 08/15] bpf: Recognize by-value struct and __int128 kfunc arguments Yonghong Song
2026-09-11 16:47 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-12 17:13 ` Yonghong Song
2026-09-11 15:50 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 09/15] bpf: Prepare kfunc arguments for the JIT from an ABI description Yonghong Song
2026-09-11 15:50 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 10/15] bpf, x86: Move kfunc arguments into the x86-64 calling convention Yonghong Song
2026-09-11 16:47 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-12 17:14 ` Yonghong Song
2026-09-11 15:50 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 11/15] bpf, arm64: Move kfunc arguments into the arm64 " Yonghong Song
2026-09-11 16:19 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-12 17:16 ` Yonghong Song
2026-09-11 16:47 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-12 17:19 ` Yonghong Song
2026-09-11 15:50 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 12/15] selftests/bpf: Add C tests for by-value arguments up to 16 bytes Yonghong Song
2026-09-11 15:50 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 13/15] selftests/bpf: Add inline-asm tests for by-value arguments Yonghong Song
2026-09-11 16:06 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-11 15:50 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 14/15] selftests/bpf: Add tests for by-value kfunc arguments Yonghong Song
2026-09-11 16:47 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-12 17:24 ` Yonghong Song
2026-09-11 15:50 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 15/15] selftests/bpf: Temporary hack to disable register mismatch in arm64 Yonghong Song
2026-09-11 16:47 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-12 3:57 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-12 17:30 ` Yonghong Song
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=20260911154929.2006014-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev \
--to=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
/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