* [PATCH] mm/bpf_memcontrol: mark BPF memcg kfuncs static
@ 2026-06-17 20:21 JP Kobryn
2026-06-17 21:06 ` Alexei Starovoitov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: JP Kobryn @ 2026-06-17 20:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: roman.gushchin, shakeel.butt, akpm, ast, bpf, linux-mm; +Cc: linux-kernel
The kfuncs in bpf_memcontrol.c are not called by in-kernel C code. They are
only referenced by BPF programs and resolved through BTF.
Since no external linkage is needed, mark these functions static.
Fixes: 5904db9891f8 ("mm: introduce BPF kfuncs to deal with memcg pointers")
Fixes: 5c7db3239c9f ("mm: introduce bpf_get_root_mem_cgroup() BPF kfunc")
Fixes: 99430ab8b804 ("mm: introduce BPF kfuncs to access memcg statistics and events")
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202606150332.Xy4Egd9s-lkp@intel.com/
Signed-off-by: JP Kobryn <jp.kobryn@linux.dev>
---
mm/bpf_memcontrol.c | 21 +++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/bpf_memcontrol.c b/mm/bpf_memcontrol.c
index 716df49d7647..eff79bb2c758 100644
--- a/mm/bpf_memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/bpf_memcontrol.c
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ __bpf_kfunc_start_defs();
*
* Return: A pointer to the root memory cgroup.
*/
-__bpf_kfunc struct mem_cgroup *bpf_get_root_mem_cgroup(void)
+__bpf_kfunc static struct mem_cgroup *bpf_get_root_mem_cgroup(void)
{
if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
return NULL;
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ __bpf_kfunc struct mem_cgroup *bpf_get_root_mem_cgroup(void)
* Return: A pointer to a mem_cgroup structure after bumping
* the corresponding css's reference counter.
*/
-__bpf_kfunc struct mem_cgroup *
+__bpf_kfunc static struct mem_cgroup *
bpf_get_mem_cgroup(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css)
{
struct mem_cgroup *memcg = NULL;
@@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ bpf_get_mem_cgroup(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css)
* Releases a previously acquired memcg reference.
* Implements KF_RELEASE semantics.
*/
-__bpf_kfunc void bpf_put_mem_cgroup(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
+__bpf_kfunc static void bpf_put_mem_cgroup(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
{
css_put(&memcg->css);
}
@@ -89,8 +89,8 @@ __bpf_kfunc void bpf_put_mem_cgroup(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
*
* Return: The current value of the corresponding events counter.
*/
-__bpf_kfunc unsigned long bpf_mem_cgroup_vm_events(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
- enum vm_event_item event)
+__bpf_kfunc static unsigned long
+bpf_mem_cgroup_vm_events(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, enum vm_event_item event)
{
if (unlikely(!memcg_vm_event_item_valid(event)))
return (unsigned long)-1;
@@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ __bpf_kfunc unsigned long bpf_mem_cgroup_vm_events(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
*
* Return: The current memory cgroup size in bytes.
*/
-__bpf_kfunc unsigned long bpf_mem_cgroup_usage(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
+__bpf_kfunc static unsigned long bpf_mem_cgroup_usage(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
{
return page_counter_read(&memcg->memory) * PAGE_SIZE;
}
@@ -122,8 +122,8 @@ __bpf_kfunc unsigned long bpf_mem_cgroup_usage(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
*
* Return: The current value of the memory event counter.
*/
-__bpf_kfunc unsigned long bpf_mem_cgroup_memory_events(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
- enum memcg_memory_event event)
+__bpf_kfunc static unsigned long
+bpf_mem_cgroup_memory_events(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, enum memcg_memory_event event)
{
if (unlikely(event >= MEMCG_NR_MEMORY_EVENTS))
return (unsigned long)-1;
@@ -140,7 +140,8 @@ __bpf_kfunc unsigned long bpf_mem_cgroup_memory_events(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
*
* Return: The value of the page state counter in bytes.
*/
-__bpf_kfunc unsigned long bpf_mem_cgroup_page_state(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, int idx)
+__bpf_kfunc static unsigned long
+bpf_mem_cgroup_page_state(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, int idx)
{
if (unlikely(!memcg_stat_item_valid(idx)))
return (unsigned long)-1;
@@ -154,7 +155,7 @@ __bpf_kfunc unsigned long bpf_mem_cgroup_page_state(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, in
*
* Propagate memory cgroup's statistics up the cgroup tree.
*/
-__bpf_kfunc void bpf_mem_cgroup_flush_stats(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
+__bpf_kfunc static void bpf_mem_cgroup_flush_stats(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
{
mem_cgroup_flush_stats(memcg);
}
--
2.54.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] mm/bpf_memcontrol: mark BPF memcg kfuncs static
2026-06-17 20:21 [PATCH] mm/bpf_memcontrol: mark BPF memcg kfuncs static JP Kobryn
@ 2026-06-17 21:06 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-06-17 22:31 ` Roman Gushchin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Alexei Starovoitov @ 2026-06-17 21:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: JP Kobryn
Cc: Roman Gushchin, Shakeel Butt, Andrew Morton, Alexei Starovoitov,
bpf, linux-mm, LKML
On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 1:22 PM JP Kobryn <jp.kobryn@linux.dev> wrote:
>
> The kfuncs in bpf_memcontrol.c are not called by in-kernel C code. They are
> only referenced by BPF programs and resolved through BTF.
>
> Since no external linkage is needed, mark these functions static.
>
> Fixes: 5904db9891f8 ("mm: introduce BPF kfuncs to deal with memcg pointers")
> Fixes: 5c7db3239c9f ("mm: introduce bpf_get_root_mem_cgroup() BPF kfunc")
> Fixes: 99430ab8b804 ("mm: introduce BPF kfuncs to access memcg statistics and events")
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202606150332.Xy4Egd9s-lkp@intel.com/
> Signed-off-by: JP Kobryn <jp.kobryn@linux.dev>
> ---
> mm/bpf_memcontrol.c | 21 +++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/bpf_memcontrol.c b/mm/bpf_memcontrol.c
> index 716df49d7647..eff79bb2c758 100644
> --- a/mm/bpf_memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/bpf_memcontrol.c
> @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ __bpf_kfunc_start_defs();
> *
> * Return: A pointer to the root memory cgroup.
> */
> -__bpf_kfunc struct mem_cgroup *bpf_get_root_mem_cgroup(void)
> +__bpf_kfunc static struct mem_cgroup *bpf_get_root_mem_cgroup(void)
sashiko disappoints. It couldn't notice that kfuncs should not be static.
We have few "__bpf_kfunc static" in net/ipv4/
that work by sort-of "luck", since their addresses are taken.
In general kfuncs cannot be declared static.
pw-bot: cr
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] mm/bpf_memcontrol: mark BPF memcg kfuncs static
2026-06-17 21:06 ` Alexei Starovoitov
@ 2026-06-17 22:31 ` Roman Gushchin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Roman Gushchin @ 2026-06-17 22:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexei Starovoitov
Cc: JP Kobryn, Shakeel Butt, Andrew Morton, Alexei Starovoitov, bpf,
linux-mm, LKML
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 1:22 PM JP Kobryn <jp.kobryn@linux.dev> wrote:
>>
>> The kfuncs in bpf_memcontrol.c are not called by in-kernel C code. They are
>> only referenced by BPF programs and resolved through BTF.
>>
>> Since no external linkage is needed, mark these functions static.
>>
>> Fixes: 5904db9891f8 ("mm: introduce BPF kfuncs to deal with memcg pointers")
>> Fixes: 5c7db3239c9f ("mm: introduce bpf_get_root_mem_cgroup() BPF kfunc")
>> Fixes: 99430ab8b804 ("mm: introduce BPF kfuncs to access memcg statistics and events")
>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
>> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202606150332.Xy4Egd9s-lkp@intel.com/
>> Signed-off-by: JP Kobryn <jp.kobryn@linux.dev>
>> ---
>> mm/bpf_memcontrol.c | 21 +++++++++++----------
>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/bpf_memcontrol.c b/mm/bpf_memcontrol.c
>> index 716df49d7647..eff79bb2c758 100644
>> --- a/mm/bpf_memcontrol.c
>> +++ b/mm/bpf_memcontrol.c
>> @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ __bpf_kfunc_start_defs();
>> *
>> * Return: A pointer to the root memory cgroup.
>> */
>> -__bpf_kfunc struct mem_cgroup *bpf_get_root_mem_cgroup(void)
>> +__bpf_kfunc static struct mem_cgroup *bpf_get_root_mem_cgroup(void)
>
> sashiko disappoints. It couldn't notice that kfuncs should not be static.
> We have few "__bpf_kfunc static" in net/ipv4/
> that work by sort-of "luck", since their addresses are taken.
>
> In general kfuncs cannot be declared static.
It seems like it thought hard on it but failed based on the existing
code and a bit vague documentation in Documentation/bpf/kfuncs.rst:
kfunc definitions should also always be annotated with the ``__bpf_kfunc``
macro. This prevents issues such as the compiler inlining the kfunc if it's a
static kernel function, or the function ...
So it reads like bpf kfuncs can be static.
This is the reasoning from the logs (a dismissed concern, to be precise):
{
"type": "Dead Code / Linker Error",
"description": "Marking kfuncs as static could cause the compiler
to optimize them away, breaking BPF verifier BTF resolution.",
"reasoning": "The patch adds `static` to multiple `__bpf_kfunc`
annotated functions that are not called anywhere in C
code. Normally, a compiler would remove unused static functions or
fail to expose them in object files, which could prevent the BTF
ID generation logic (`resolve_btfids`) from finding them. However,
the `__bpf_kfunc` macro expands to include `__used` and
`__retain`, which strictly instructs the compiler and linker to
preserve the functions in the object file regardless of
usage. Additionally, `resolve_btfids` and `BTF_ID_FLAGS`
successfully parse and resolve `STB_LOCAL` static symbols, making
this change completely safe and correct.",
"locations": [
{
"file": "mm/bpf_memcontrol.c",
"function_or_symbol": null,
"line_range": null,
"why_this_location_matters": "This applies to all the
functions modified by the patch."
}
]
}
Thanks
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-06-17 22:31 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2026-06-17 20:21 [PATCH] mm/bpf_memcontrol: mark BPF memcg kfuncs static JP Kobryn
2026-06-17 21:06 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-06-17 22:31 ` Roman Gushchin
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox