From: Mykyta Yatsenko <mykyta.yatsenko5@gmail.com>
To: Chengkaitao <pilgrimtao@gmail.com>,
martin.lau@linux.dev, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net,
andrii@kernel.org, eddyz87@gmail.com, song@kernel.org,
yonghong.song@linux.dev, john.fastabend@gmail.com,
kpsingh@kernel.org, sdf@fomichev.me, haoluo@google.com,
jolsa@kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org, chengkaitao@kylinos.cn,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/6] bpf: add bpf_list_is_first/last/empty kfuncs
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2026 15:13:21 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <875x7bzkz2.fsf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260304031606.43884-6-pilgrimtao@gmail.com>
Chengkaitao <pilgrimtao@gmail.com> writes:
> From: Kaitao Cheng <chengkaitao@kylinos.cn>
>
> Add three kfuncs for BPF linked list queries:
> - bpf_list_is_first(head, node): true if node is the first in the list.
> - bpf_list_is_last(head, node): true if node is the last in the list.
> - bpf_list_empty(head): true if the list has no entries.
>
> In previous versions, to implement the above functionality, it was
> necessary to first call bpf_list_pop_front/back to retrieve the first
> or last node before checking whether the passed-in node was the first
> or last one. After the check, the node had to be pushed back into the
> list using bpf_list_push_front/back, which was very inefficient.
>
> Now, with the bpf_list_is_first/last/empty kfuncs, we can directly
> check whether a node is the first, last, or whether the list is empty,
> without having to first retrieve the node.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kaitao Cheng <chengkaitao@kylinos.cn>
> ---
> kernel/bpf/helpers.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 15 +++++++++++++--
> 2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> index 188840057c7d..2b9f30a36c63 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> @@ -2521,6 +2521,44 @@ __bpf_kfunc int bpf_list_add_impl(struct bpf_list_head *head,
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> +__bpf_kfunc bool bpf_list_is_first(struct bpf_list_head *head, struct bpf_list_node *node)
> +{
> + struct list_head *h = (struct list_head *)head;
> + struct bpf_list_node_kern *n = (struct bpf_list_node_kern *)node;
> +
> + if (unlikely(!h->next) || list_empty(h))
> + return false;
Do we need this block?
It sounds like a problem if we end up in the situation where
node->owner points to the uninitialized head - the list is corrupted.
> +
> + if (READ_ONCE(n->owner) != head)
> + return false;
> +
> + return h->next == &n->list_head;
Can we reuse list_is_first() here for simplicity?
> +}
> +
> +__bpf_kfunc bool bpf_list_is_last(struct bpf_list_head *head, struct bpf_list_node *node)
> +{
> + struct list_head *h = (struct list_head *)head;
> + struct bpf_list_node_kern *n = (struct bpf_list_node_kern *)node;
> +
> + if (unlikely(!h->next) || list_empty(h))
> + return false;
> +
> + if (READ_ONCE(n->owner) != head)
> + return false;
> +
> + return h->prev == &n->list_head;
Here maybe list_is_last() going to work as well?
> +}
> +
> +__bpf_kfunc bool bpf_list_empty(struct bpf_list_head *head)
> +{
> + struct list_head *h = (struct list_head *)head;
> +
> + if (unlikely(!h->next))
> + return true;
> +
> + return list_empty(h);
> +}
> +
> __bpf_kfunc struct bpf_rb_node *bpf_rbtree_remove(struct bpf_rb_root *root,
> struct bpf_rb_node *node)
> {
> @@ -4591,6 +4629,9 @@ BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_list_del, KF_ACQUIRE | KF_RET_NULL)
> BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_list_front, KF_RET_NULL)
> BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_list_back, KF_RET_NULL)
> BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_list_add_impl)
> +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_list_is_first)
> +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_list_is_last)
> +BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_list_empty)
> BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_task_acquire, KF_ACQUIRE | KF_RCU | KF_RET_NULL)
> BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_task_release, KF_RELEASE)
> BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_rbtree_remove, KF_ACQUIRE | KF_RET_NULL)
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index 197b972e79a2..e97c7e11bf65 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -12465,6 +12465,9 @@ enum special_kfunc_type {
> KF_bpf_list_front,
> KF_bpf_list_back,
> KF_bpf_list_add_impl,
> + KF_bpf_list_is_first,
> + KF_bpf_list_is_last,
> + KF_bpf_list_empty,
> KF_bpf_cast_to_kern_ctx,
> KF_bpf_rdonly_cast,
> KF_bpf_rcu_read_lock,
> @@ -12527,6 +12530,9 @@ BTF_ID(func, bpf_list_del)
> BTF_ID(func, bpf_list_front)
> BTF_ID(func, bpf_list_back)
> BTF_ID(func, bpf_list_add_impl)
> +BTF_ID(func, bpf_list_is_first)
> +BTF_ID(func, bpf_list_is_last)
> +BTF_ID(func, bpf_list_empty)
> BTF_ID(func, bpf_cast_to_kern_ctx)
> BTF_ID(func, bpf_rdonly_cast)
> BTF_ID(func, bpf_rcu_read_lock)
> @@ -13003,7 +13009,10 @@ static bool is_bpf_list_api_kfunc(u32 btf_id)
> btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_del] ||
> btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_front] ||
> btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_back] ||
> - btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_add_impl];
> + btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_add_impl] ||
> + btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_is_first] ||
> + btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_is_last] ||
> + btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_empty];
> }
>
> static bool is_bpf_rbtree_api_kfunc(u32 btf_id)
> @@ -13126,7 +13135,9 @@ static bool check_kfunc_is_graph_node_api(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
> ret = (kfunc_btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_push_front_impl] ||
> kfunc_btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_push_back_impl] ||
> kfunc_btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_del] ||
> - kfunc_btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_add_impl]);
> + kfunc_btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_add_impl] ||
> + kfunc_btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_is_first] ||
> + kfunc_btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_is_last]);
> break;
> case BPF_RB_NODE:
> ret = (kfunc_btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_remove] ||
> --
> 2.50.1 (Apple Git-155)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-04 15:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-04 3:16 [PATCH v5 0/6] bpf: Extend the bpf_list family of APIs Chengkaitao
2026-03-04 3:16 ` [PATCH v5 1/6] bpf: Introduce the bpf_list_del kfunc Chengkaitao
2026-03-04 15:50 ` Mykyta Yatsenko
2026-03-04 3:16 ` [PATCH v5 2/6] selftests/bpf: Add test cases for bpf_list_del Chengkaitao
2026-03-04 15:43 ` Mykyta Yatsenko
2026-03-04 3:16 ` [PATCH v5 3/6] bpf: add bpf_list_add_impl to insert node after a given list node Chengkaitao
2026-03-04 3:50 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-03-04 3:16 ` [PATCH v5 4/6] selftests/bpf: Add test case for bpf_list_add_impl Chengkaitao
2026-03-04 15:40 ` Mykyta Yatsenko
2026-03-08 14:29 ` Chengkaitao
2026-03-04 3:16 ` [PATCH v5 5/6] bpf: add bpf_list_is_first/last/empty kfuncs Chengkaitao
2026-03-04 15:13 ` Mykyta Yatsenko [this message]
2026-03-04 3:16 ` [PATCH v5 6/6] selftests/bpf: Add test cases for bpf_list_is_first/is_last/empty Chengkaitao
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=875x7bzkz2.fsf@gmail.com \
--to=mykyta.yatsenko5@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=chengkaitao@kylinos.cn \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=haoluo@google.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=pilgrimtao@gmail.com \
--cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox