Re: [PATCH 3/4] cgroup: Use __counted_by for cgroup::ancestors

["Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com>]

On 12/19/25 01:32, Michal Koutný wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 06:09:42AM -1000, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 03:09:32PM +0800, Chen Ridong wrote:
>>> Note that this level may already be used in existing BPF programs (e.g.,
>>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/task_ls_uptr.c). Do we need to consider compatibility here?
>>
>> That's a good point.
> 
> I wouldn't be concerned about this particular aspect. The commit
> e6ac2450d6dee ("bpf: Support bpf program calling kernel function")
> excludes ABIs, the example program uses ksyms (not kfuncs), so there
> could even apply Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst.
> OTOH, the semantics of level is unchanged for BPF helpers (that are the
> official API).
> 
> 
>> Is __counted_by instrumentation tied to some compiler flag? If so,
>> might as well make it an optional extra field specifically for the
>> annotation rather than changing the meaning of an existing field.
> 
> Honestly, I can see benefit mainly in the first patch of the series
> (posted the rest for discussion).
> 
> I'd like to ask Gustavo whether __counted_by here buys us anything or
> whether it's more useful in other parts of kernel (e.g. flexible
> allocations in networking code with outer sources of data).

Ideally, all structures containing a flexible-array member (FAM) should
be annotated. However, if this is too much of a hassle right now, I'd
say the priority is to avoid the -Wflex-array-member-not-at-end warnings,
first.

Thanks
-Gustavo