Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 01/10] bpf: Refactor btf_kfunc_id_set_contains

[Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>]

On Fri, 2026-01-09 at 10:48 -0800, Ihor Solodrai wrote:
> btf_kfunc_id_set_contains() is called by fetch_kfunc_meta() in the BPF
> verifier to get the kfunc flags stored in the .BTF_ids ELF section.
> If it returns NULL instead of a valid pointer, it's interpreted as an
> illegal kfunc usage failing the verification.
> 
> There are two potential reasons for btf_kfunc_id_set_contains() to
> return NULL:
> 
>   1. Provided kfunc BTF id is not present in relevant kfunc id sets.
>   2. The kfunc is not allowed, as determined by the program type
>      specific filter [1].
> 
> The filter functions accept a pointer to `struct bpf_prog`, so they
> might implicitly depend on earlier stages of verification, when
> bpf_prog members are set.
> 
> For example, bpf_qdisc_kfunc_filter() in linux/net/sched/bpf_qdisc.c
> inspects prog->aux->st_ops [2], which is initialized in:
> 
>     check_attach_btf_id() -> check_struct_ops_btf_id()
> 
> So far this hasn't been an issue, because fetch_kfunc_meta() is the
> only caller of btf_kfunc_id_set_contains().
> 
> However in subsequent patches of this series it is necessary to
> inspect kfunc flags earlier in BPF verifier, in the add_kfunc_call().
> 
> To resolve this, refactor btf_kfunc_id_set_contains() into two
> interface functions:
>   * btf_kfunc_flags() that simply returns pointer to kfunc_flags
>     without applying the filters
>   * btf_kfunc_is_allowed() that both checks for kfunc_flags existence
>     (which is a requirement for a kfunc to be allowed) and applies the
>     prog filters
> 
> See [3] for the previous version of this patch.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230519225157.760788-7-aditi.ghag@isovalent.com/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250409214606.2000194-4-ameryhung@gmail.com/
> [3] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20251029190113.3323406-3-ihor.solodrai@linux.dev/
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev>
> ---

Reviewed-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>

> @@ -8715,6 +8730,26 @@ static int bpf_prog_type_to_kfunc_hook(enum bpf_prog_type prog_type)
>  	}
>  }
>  
> +bool btf_kfunc_is_allowed(const struct btf *btf,
> +			  u32 kfunc_btf_id,
> +			  const struct bpf_prog *prog)
> +{

Nit: I'd just add hook parameter to btf_kfunc_flags():

     u32 *btf_kfunc_flags(const struct btf *btf, u32 kfunc_btf_id, const struct bpf_prog *prog,
                          enum btf_kfunc_hook *hook)

     and allow passing NULL there, thus avoiding duplicating logic for common hook.

> +	enum bpf_prog_type prog_type = resolve_prog_type(prog);
> +	enum btf_kfunc_hook hook;
> +	u32 *kfunc_flags;
> +
> +	kfunc_flags = btf_kfunc_id_set_contains(btf, BTF_KFUNC_HOOK_COMMON, kfunc_btf_id);
> +	if (kfunc_flags && __btf_kfunc_is_allowed(btf, BTF_KFUNC_HOOK_COMMON, kfunc_btf_id, prog))
> +		return true;
> +
> +	hook = bpf_prog_type_to_kfunc_hook(prog_type);
> +	kfunc_flags = btf_kfunc_id_set_contains(btf, hook, kfunc_btf_id);
> +	if (kfunc_flags && __btf_kfunc_is_allowed(btf, hook, kfunc_btf_id, prog))
> +		return true;
> +
> +	return false;
> +}
> +
>  /* Caution:
>   * Reference to the module (obtained using btf_try_get_module) corresponding to
>   * the struct btf *MUST* be held when calling this function from verifier

[...]