BPF List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
To: Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev>,
	Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi	 <memxor@gmail.com>,
	Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@oracle.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
	dwarves@vger.kernel.org
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Emil Tsalapatis <emil@etsalapatis.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH dwarves] btf_encoder: Infer arena kfunc arguments from suffixes
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2026 14:34:54 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4d20aecf677f4aec3e8e70106d4bdbcb01902e69.camel@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6c9500d4-7401-44f0-93a6-88a827026ae0@linux.dev>

On Tue, 2026-08-04 at 14:19 -0700, Ihor Solodrai wrote:
> On 8/4/26 1:22 PM, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> > On Tue, 2026-08-04 at 21:27 +0200, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> > > On Tue Aug 4, 2026 at 8:43 PM CEST, Ihor Solodrai wrote:
> > > > On 8/3/26 5:55 AM, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > So while I understand the reluctance to add KF_ARENA_ARG3..N, I don't
> > > > think we want to introduce and support yet another mechanism for arena
> > > > argument annotations. If we do, we'll be stuck with a mess of
> > > > supporting two/three ways of doing the same thing for the foreseeable future.
> > > 
> > > I think one major difference is that KF_ARENA_ARG* things were mostly for
> > > annotating the vmlinux.h with the right address space label before, but didn't
> > > carry any semantic meaning for the kfunc's type checks.
> > > 
> > > That changes with these suffixes though. The pointer will be translated when
> > > passed into the kfunc. IMO it would be odd to diverge for this particular case,
> > > since we use suffixes for every other case where we constrain the input type of
> > > the kfunc argument or give it special meaning.
> > > 
> > > We also want to have similar annotation on struct_ops callbacks, where we also
> > > use suffixes, so it seemed better to keep it consistent.
> > 
> > I agree that we should follow the principle of least surprise here and
> > use suffixes, as everything else uses suffixes as well.
> 
> Ok, I understand the motivation. Let's say we use the suffixes.
> 
> Should this enable getting rid of KF_ARENA* flags then? For the
> purposes of generating address_space(1), we can also just check the
> name suffix, no?

That would be ideal, yes.

> > 
> > And yes, the __arena and KF_ARENA_ARG* annotations have different
> > semantics:
> > - __arena means that user space arena address is passed as is
> > - KF_ARENA_ARG* means that a user space address is converted
> >   to a kernel space address before passing.
> 
> Also I am a little confused about whether we *need* to be able to
> express two distinct meanings of "arena pointer" or not?
> 
> My understanding is that "arena pointer" is a feature of an arg type
> that has a single meaning: the pointer has one base in BPF world, and
> a different base when executed in the kernel.
> 
> The things that are missing is auto-conversion (Tejun's RFC [1]) and more
> comprehensive support of PTR_TO_ARENA in the verifier.
> 
> This is still only one "arena" annotation per arg. Do we actually need
> the proliferation of __arena, __arena__nullable and/or __arena_kern,
> __arena_user? Can't we have a single defined semantics of how arena
> pointers are supposed to work?
> 
> I can imagine something like follows:
>   * arena pointers can not be null, check for nulls
>     before passing from BPF prog to the kernel

We are deliberately lax when handling arena and don't do any kind of
value tracking there. So e.g. the following won't work:

  if (foo->ptr) {
    ...
    kfunc(foo->ptr);
  }

Unless compiler decides to keep foo->ptr in a register. I'm not sure
whether enforcing non-null here from the verifier side is the right
call.

>   * arena pointers are converted to the kernel space for
>     kfunc/struct_ops callback by the verifier
> 
> With the documented and enforced semantics like this one way of
> annotating and one annotation should be enough.
> 
> What am I missing?

At the moment we have two consumers:
- Planned sched_ext related kfuncs that need kernel space pointers.
- Existing kfuncs with KF_ARENA_ARG:
  - bpf_arena_alloc_pages
  - bpf_arena_free_pages
  - bpf_arena_reserve_pages
  They, take a user space address. Looking at the code is appears that
  all three can be changed to handle kernel space address.
  On the other hand, neither of these *needs* the passed pointer to be
  converted to a kernel side arena pointer. So that would be just some
  useless work.

So there are two valid use cases.

...

  reply	other threads:[~2026-08-04 21:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-08-03 12:55 [PATCH dwarves] btf_encoder: Infer arena kfunc arguments from suffixes Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-04 18:43 ` Ihor Solodrai
2026-08-04 19:27   ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-04 20:22     ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-08-04 21:19       ` Ihor Solodrai
2026-08-04 21:34         ` Eduard Zingerman [this message]
2026-08-04 21:46           ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-04 21:51             ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-08-04 21:57               ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-04 22:57               ` Ihor Solodrai
2026-08-04 23:17                 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-04 21:55           ` Ihor Solodrai
2026-08-04 22:05             ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-08-04 22:13               ` Ihor Solodrai
2026-08-04 21:36         ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi

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=4d20aecf677f4aec3e8e70106d4bdbcb01902e69.camel@gmail.com \
    --to=eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --cc=acme@kernel.org \
    --cc=alan.maguire@oracle.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=dwarves@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=emil@etsalapatis.com \
    --cc=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
    --cc=memxor@gmail.com \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    /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