public inbox for dwarves@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev>
To: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
	bpf@vger.kernel.org, andrii@kernel.org, ast@kernel.org
Cc: dwarves@vger.kernel.org, alan.maguire@oracle.com,
	acme@kernel.org, tj@kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 0/8] bpf: magic kernel functions
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 11:24:50 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <7b44aae0-b2d1-4398-8721-04c052aa2a77@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6e0b67d02cf7243b01a163589b3b58d1e4a0fdd8.camel@gmail.com>

On 10/30/25 11:14 AM, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> On Wed, 2025-10-29 at 23:11 -0700, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
>> On Wed, 2025-10-29 at 17:44 -0700, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2025-10-29 at 12:01 -0700, Ihor Solodrai wrote:
>>>
>>> Do we break compatibility with old pahole versions after this
>>> patch-set? Old paholes won't synthesize the _impl kfuncs, so:
>>> - binary compatibility between new-kernel/old-pahole + old-bpf
>>>   will be broken, as there would be no _impl kfuncs;
>>> - new-kernel/old-pahole + new-bpf won't work either, as kernel will
>>> be
>>>   unable to find non-_impl function names for existing kfuncs.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> Point being, if we are going to break backwards compatibility the
>> following things need an update:
>> - Documentation/process/changes.rst
>>   minimal pahole version has to be bumped
>> - scripts/Makefile.btf
>>   All the different flags and options for different pahole
>>   versions can be dropped.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> On the other hand, I'm not sure this useful but relatively obscure
>> feature grants such a compatibility break. Some time ago Ihor
>> advocated for just having two functions in the kernel, so that BTF
>> will be generated for both. And I think that someone suggested putting
>> the fake function to a discard-able section.
>> This way the whole thing can be done in kernel only.
>> E.g. it will look like so:
>>
>>   __bpf_kfunc void btf_foo_impl(struct bpf_prog_aux p__implicit)
>>   { /* real impl here */ }
>>
>>   __bpf_kfunc_proto void btf_foo(void) {}
>>
>> Assuming that __bpf_kfunc_proto hides all the necessary attributes.
>> Not much boilerplate, and a tad easier to understand where second
>> prototype comes from, no need to read pahole.
> 
> Scheme discussed off-list for new functions with __implicit args:
> - kernel source code:
> 
>     __bpf_kfunc void foo(struct bpf_prog_aux p__implicit)
> 	BTF_ID_FLAGS(foo, KF_IMPLICIT_ARGS)
> 
> - pahole:
>   - renames foo to foo_impl
>   - adds bpf-side definition for 'foo' w/o implicit args
>   vmlinux btf:
> 
>     __bpf_kfunc void foo_impl(struct bpf_prog_aux p__implicit);
>     void foo(void);

I believe it's the other way around:
     void foo_impl(struct bpf_prog_aux p__implicit);
     __bpf_kfunc void foo(void);

foo() is callable from BPF, but foo_impl() is not.
But we still want foo_impl() in BTF so that the verifier can find the 
correct prototype.

Andrii, please confirm.

> 
> - resolve_btfids puts the 'foo' (the one w/o implicit args) id to all
>   id lists (no changes needed for this, follows from pahole changes);
> - verifier.c:add_kfunc_call()
>   - Sees the id of 'foo' and kfunc flags with KF_IMPLICIT_ARGS
>   - Replaces the id with id of 'foo_impl'.
> 
> This will break the following scenario:
> - new kfunc is added with __implicit arg
> - kernel is built with old pahole
> - vmlinux.h is generated for such kernel
> - bpf program is compiled against such vmlinux.h
> - attempt to run such program on a new kernel compiled with new pahole
>   will fail.

I think you meant "new kernel compiled with old pahole".

> 
> Andrei and Alexei deemed this acceptable.


  reply	other threads:[~2025-10-30 18:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-10-29 19:01 [PATCH bpf-next v1 0/8] bpf: magic kernel functions Ihor Solodrai
2025-10-29 19:01 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 1/8] bpf: Add BTF_ID_LIST_END and BTF_ID_LIST_SIZE macros Ihor Solodrai
2025-10-29 19:41   ` bot+bpf-ci
2025-10-29 20:44     ` Ihor Solodrai
2025-10-29 23:54   ` Eduard Zingerman
2025-10-29 19:01 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 2/8] bpf: Refactor btf_kfunc_id_set_contains Ihor Solodrai
2025-10-29 23:55   ` Eduard Zingerman
2025-10-29 19:01 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 3/8] bpf: Support for kfuncs with KF_MAGIC_ARGS Ihor Solodrai
2025-10-29 19:41   ` bot+bpf-ci
2025-10-29 20:49     ` Ihor Solodrai
2025-10-29 23:59       ` Eduard Zingerman
2025-10-29 23:54   ` Eduard Zingerman
2025-10-30  0:03     ` Alexei Starovoitov
2025-10-30 16:31     ` Ihor Solodrai
2025-10-30 17:26       ` Eduard Zingerman
2025-10-30 10:24   ` kernel test robot
2025-10-30 11:58   ` kernel test robot
2025-10-30 13:54   ` kernel test robot
2025-10-29 19:01 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 4/8] bpf: Support __magic prog_aux arguments for kfuncs Ihor Solodrai
2025-10-29 19:01 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 5/8] bpf: Re-define bpf_wq_set_callback as magic kfunc Ihor Solodrai
2025-10-30  0:16   ` Eduard Zingerman
2025-10-29 19:01 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 6/8] bpf,docs: Document KF_MAGIC_ARGS flag and __magic annotation Ihor Solodrai
2025-10-30  0:21   ` Eduard Zingerman
2025-10-29 19:01 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 7/8] bpf: Re-define bpf_task_work_schedule_* kfuncs as magic Ihor Solodrai
2025-10-29 19:01 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 8/8] bpf: Re-define bpf_stream_vprintk as a magic kfunc Ihor Solodrai
2025-10-30  0:44 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 0/8] bpf: magic kernel functions Eduard Zingerman
2025-10-30  6:11   ` Eduard Zingerman
2025-10-30 18:14     ` Eduard Zingerman
2025-10-30 18:24       ` Ihor Solodrai [this message]
2025-10-30 18:37         ` Eduard Zingerman
2025-10-30 18:26       ` Alan Maguire
2025-10-30 18:42         ` Eduard Zingerman
2025-10-30 18:46         ` Ihor Solodrai
2025-10-30 19:47           ` Andrii Nakryiko
2025-10-30 20:02             ` Ihor Solodrai
2025-10-30 20:38               ` Andrii Nakryiko

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=7b44aae0-b2d1-4398-8721-04c052aa2a77@linux.dev \
    --to=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
    --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=eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@meta.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