Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 08/10] bpf: Add bpf_task_work_schedule_* kfuncs with KF_IMPLICIT_ARGS

[Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev>]

On 1/9/26 12:47 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2026 at 12:02 PM Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev> wrote:
>>
>> On 1/9/26 11:58 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 9, 2026 at 10:50 AM Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +__bpf_kfunc int bpf_task_work_schedule_signal(struct task_struct *task, struct bpf_task_work *tw,
>>>> +                                             void *map__map, bpf_task_work_callback_t callback,
>>>> +                                             struct bpf_prog_aux *aux)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       return bpf_task_work_schedule(task, tw, map__map, callback, aux, TWA_SIGNAL);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>>  __bpf_kfunc int bpf_task_work_schedule_signal_impl(struct task_struct *task,
>>>>                                                    struct bpf_task_work *tw, void *map__map,
>>>>                                                    bpf_task_work_callback_t callback,
>>>>                                                    void *aux__prog)
>>>>  {
>>>> -       return bpf_task_work_schedule(task, tw, map__map, callback, aux__prog, TWA_SIGNAL);
>>>> +       return bpf_task_work_schedule_signal(task, tw, map__map, callback, aux__prog);
>>>>  }
>>>
>>> I thought we decided that _impl() will not be marked as __bpf_kfunc
>>> and will not be in BTF_ID(func, _impl).
>>> We can mark it as __weak noinline and it will be in kallsyms.
>>> That's all we need for the verifier and resolve_btfid, no?
>>>
>>> Sorry, it's been a long time. I must have forgotten something.
>>
>> For the *generated* _impl kfuncs there is no decl tags and the ids are
>> absent from BTF_ID sets, yes.
>>
>> However for the "legacy" cases it must be there for backwards
>> compatibility, as well as relevant verifier checks.
> 
> I see.
> I feel bpf_task_work_schedule_resume() is ok to break, since it's so new.
> We can remove bpf_task_work_schedule_[resume|singal]_impl()
> to avoid carrying forward forever.
> 
> bpf_stream_vprintk_impl() is not that clear. I would remove it too.

That leaves only bpf_wq_set_callback_impl(). Can we break that too?

Then there won't be legacy cases at all. It was introduced in v6.16
along the with __prog suffix [1][2].

If we go this route, we could clean up __prog support/docs too.

I think it's worth it to make an "all or nothing" decision here:
either break all 4 existing kfuncs, or backwards-support all of them.

git tag --contains bc049387b41f | grep -v rc
v6.16
v6.17
v6.18

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250513142812.1021591-1-memxor@gmail.com/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240420-bpf_wq-v2-13-6c986a5a741f@kernel.org/