From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pl1-f174.google.com (mail-pl1-f174.google.com [209.85.214.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 936CE153BE9 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2026 02:49:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.174 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770518944; cv=none; b=ZHBaWnRlXOx8mfIxt8ZNmnAYecMuwHE2gxUOvrw0jv4e7EULA5LeCk+0FmARvFiyoEbXjkuy8swC1wACIW/hGLx7h9VSw4TzLEEdy/VwXEI4DIjGXAs+85trJ8HMQXLJj9FzGlLmJCfopUR9FGxfELpsHiqZBmXem1mTRosqxQ4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770518944; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ggaDIpn3ewDGn+U09yPrXsdr7h8u5fNEwSg1M3wvUWM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=DsrzF1/nY86Qx0hr+2gRMHPxB6UnNwKq8l+66Sh2Ow0dJWcNh6r8Q3h0AtOyHOa6dmelHxXR49q1Q/CUZwWaTSceWXKWTyfNV0BKVVbLLBSPqp+GtaO4RYOqXSY/CLU62NvlPWzKMH2b6NTJkObwxwWFOeq+CNO11BZ1KYU8pNk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=NfNsrqoX; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.174 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="NfNsrqoX" Received: by mail-pl1-f174.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2a8a7269547so31065155ad.0 for ; Sat, 07 Feb 2026 18:49:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1770518944; x=1771123744; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:subject:cc :to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=yJE7ntfEvSYVWyw3WIf0KrfyfMPjDLGhWYcYr6XtYJU=; b=NfNsrqoXaiLA1PL7fzChDL5OtZpDifgnOMYPnNrqhRgatjRa62JUBQdr55ntPT4AeS ulK7nsfIX+smPKvzvesJMq0iwWNlYYIZZQcmMVn0WQv0+j/ulQEAmA5YfyOJs4ngdino mYmYvQX4gVc7RkPHqpGZmtc0Zyec25YISw0T4/qhQ4Vcb0d/taGcwpNr9umVIy0Dihxx nmZ+RVPrEIJMCLLd0826w7ixDXDNT8B/4kPTazU+JNqMkNNthI7ahTedpG7vdByhiSrL KVq6JyGxvPuyf+60SQy2WnrwATZMwNklUZUoCpkEQ37UQHSxRRenp6WRmdy33KGjRbfo 1DbA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1770518944; x=1771123744; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:subject:cc :to:from:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=yJE7ntfEvSYVWyw3WIf0KrfyfMPjDLGhWYcYr6XtYJU=; b=dF6waOFqXYLYeQt3tKkyVDW4p5VWbHIAwV6I+Wgh5Gx2AVeOq3rGRtWU1ssdcjc57b hl4YWKne3ltGAtNWDkIlZys/Hr6N/vg89li163/ROuIEk+7qyA0ZyYoRWEQFxmN3V4qt yDKku0YqggIbVjW9ZWnb7/nx9HbGCXUl4GG4bSUTaY7XYW6gUf8IGyk7X1+/GQabYwsS sQxClvVH+2HOAezziT/CBTWAlPaxf9rFz/8fTVWc6/QzUSKo3L7zfGULNJGhmn7wLyai IxaRC/xrhgDpFNZRRveRKDVFwtN5++LHvR+tqa01MS0+B2aDEDkKjUgXjOHDI3L7xvzx d07g== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWbaO4NL7WtLXnOGIMrv8ge0KiPSVOlYcg3FUzZtCt0/HFV3hlveJ0rimh8pBCjxwBqU1WU1rbd7ylPOziq2So=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxoGETAhklHpe5dYwgT4yZBg1VNQ3aKmBOH8jGLIyouA6yRkc9/ 86540LWWtJZL8ppk9O+Vpa4NWrfao3ZJbO6lpjqeyPMf052mGIknDjAU X-Gm-Gg: AZuq6aIotjN2wwMjPyiAlHfkDmoMuNBfT++9SBInZN4xt07eygN4pQIvb22jbkXtFg9 NPF26E5G6EFTPVgVFWzIRIJavkxw2bZ+pL6XCr56DTKternEDNsWV0b0Rz39se0mtmX4meewJPR o+tn0BVbjLBY/kJ5KjB/3bqPAsIG2KXaEiZs4zRJpGmzuKN0cR5xCyS5Y4uXisa5qACYYOm6YYf NBMYIwy3qAYSlTaT1MKwkVNTXt3T0vYAs0XPmcKQ3cVEAJhNs+j9huuLgfsBeUtwal7wfdwyBCU L85ws8VxBlu7I/dphsMIn+cREez02ZZqzH7HcdGlTECcbbcHPelXG9mVcDrbJRUUXeuH5CSq50f dJP/39m1tiED/yeZL9cb0AN5PiMoIdcPIaHze6h6re3SHcLcc480VNzbIyIxreWwwxOvrzmoXJC jt9zhz0IiEqRefLeWSyPYaIemuWdnTK864ZaHIrZGV X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:1c2:b0:2a9:4450:abbc with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2a95164f64dmr88105895ad.26.1770518943797; Sat, 07 Feb 2026 18:49:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([113.218.252.53]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d9443c01a7336-2a9521b9f5esm67194715ad.51.2026.02.07.18.48.51 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256 bits=256/256); Sat, 07 Feb 2026 18:49:02 -0800 (PST) From: Chengkaitao To: ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, john.fastabend@gmail.com, andrii@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev, eddyz87@gmail.com, song@kernel.org, yonghong.song@linux.dev, kpsingh@kernel.org, sdf@fomichev.me, haoluo@google.com, jolsa@kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org, yangfeng@kylinos.cn, alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Kaitao Cheng Subject: [PATCH v6 0/5] bpf/verifier: Expand the usage scenarios of bpf_kptr_xchg Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2026 10:48:41 +0800 Message-ID: <20260208024846.18653-1-pilgrimtao@gmail.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.50.1 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Kaitao Cheng When using bpf_kptr_xchg, we triggered the following error: 31: (85) call bpf_kptr_xchg#194 function calls are not allowed while holding a lock bpf_kptr_xchg can now be used in lock-held contexts, so we extended its usage scope in [patch 1/5]. When writing test cases using bpf_kptr_xchg and bpf_rbtree_*, the following approach must be followed: bpf_spin_lock(&lock); rb_n = bpf_rbtree_root(&root); while (rb_n && can_loop) { rb_n = bpf_rbtree_remove(&root, rb_n); if (!rb_n) goto fail; tnode = container_of(rb_n, struct tree_node, node); node_data = bpf_kptr_xchg(&tnode->node_data, NULL); if (!node_data) goto fail; data = node_data->data; /* use data to do something */ node_data = bpf_kptr_xchg(&tnode->node_data, node_data); if (node_data) goto fail; bpf_rbtree_add(&root, rb_n, less); if (lookup_key < tnode->key) rb_n = bpf_rbtree_left(&root, rb_n); else rb_n = bpf_rbtree_right(&root, rb_n); } bpf_spin_unlock(&lock); The above illustrates a lock-remove-read-add-unlock workflow, which exhibits lower performance. To address this, we introduced support for a streamlined lock-read-unlock operation in [patch 2/5] and [patch 4/5]. Changes in v6: - allow using bpf_kptr_xchg even if the MEM_RCU flag is set - Add test case Changes in v5: - add lastname Changes in v4: - Fix the dead logic issue in the test case Changes in v3: - Fix compilation errors Changes in v2: - Allow using bpf_kptr_xchg even if the NON_OWN_REF flag is set - Add test case Link to v5: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260203022712.99347-1-pilgrimtao@gmail.com/ Link to v4: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260202090051.87802-1-pilgrimtao@gmail.com/ Link to V3: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260202055818.78231-1-pilgrimtao@gmail.com/ Link to V2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260201031607.32940-1-pilgrimtao@gmail.com/ Link to V1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260122081426.78472-1-pilgrimtao@gmail.com/ Kaitao Cheng (5): bpf/verifier: allow calling bpf_kptr_xchg while holding a lock bpf/verifier: allow using bpf_kptr_xchg even if the NON_OWN_REF flag is set selftests/bpf: Add supplementary tests for bpf_kptr_xchg bpf/verifier: allow using bpf_kptr_xchg even if the MEM_RCU flag is set selftests/bpf: Add test case for rbtree nodes that contain both bpf_refcount and kptr fields. kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 9 +- .../testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/rbtree.c | 6 + tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_misc.h | 4 + .../selftests/bpf/progs/rbtree_search_kptr.c | 290 ++++++++++++++++++ 4 files changed, 307 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/rbtree_search_kptr.c -- 2.50.1 (Apple Git-155)