public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>
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 v4 3/6] bpf: add bpf_list_add_impl to insert node after a given list node
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2026 11:29:06 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ac769b90-262d-43de-85fc-7d47775b0a4a@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260303135219.33726-4-pilgrimtao@gmail.com>

On 3/3/26 21:52, Chengkaitao wrote:
> From: Kaitao Cheng <chengkaitao@kylinos.cn>
> 
> Add a new kfunc bpf_list_add_impl(head, new, prev, meta, off) that
> inserts 'new' after 'prev' in the BPF linked list. Both must be in
> the same list; 'prev' must already be in the list. The new node must
> be an owning reference (e.g. from bpf_obj_new); the kfunc consumes
> that reference and the node becomes non-owning once inserted.
> 
> We have added an additional parameter bpf_list_head *head to
> bpf_list_add_impl, as the verifier requires the head parameter to
> check whether the lock is being held.
> 
> Returns 0 on success, -EINVAL if 'prev' is not in a list or 'new'
> is already in a list (or duplicate insertion). On failure, the
> kernel drops the passed-in node.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kaitao Cheng <chengkaitao@kylinos.cn>
> ---
>  kernel/bpf/helpers.c  | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 14 ++++++++++----
>  2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> index 19d88da8e694..488810da8f30 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> @@ -2497,6 +2497,32 @@ __bpf_kfunc struct bpf_list_node *bpf_list_back(struct bpf_list_head *head)
>  	return (struct bpf_list_node *)h->prev;
>  }
>  
> +__bpf_kfunc int bpf_list_add_impl(struct bpf_list_head *head,
> +				  struct bpf_list_node *new,
> +				  struct bpf_list_node *prev,
> +				  void *meta__ign, u64 off)
> +{
> +	struct bpf_list_node_kern *kn = (void *)new, *kp = (void *)prev;
> +	struct btf_struct_meta *meta = meta__ign;
> +	struct list_head *n = &kn->list_head, *p = &kp->list_head;
> +
> +	if (unlikely(!head))
> +		return -EINVAL;

Should the head handling be kept consistent with __bpf_list_add()?

> +
> +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(READ_ONCE(kp->owner) != head))
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	if (cmpxchg(&kn->owner, NULL, BPF_PTR_POISON)) {
> +		__bpf_obj_drop_impl((void *)n - off,
> +			meta ? meta->record : NULL, false);
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	}
> +
> +	list_add(n, p);
> +	WRITE_ONCE(kn->owner, head);
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>  __bpf_kfunc struct bpf_rb_node *bpf_rbtree_remove(struct bpf_rb_root *root,
>  						  struct bpf_rb_node *node)
>  {
> @@ -4566,6 +4592,7 @@ BTF_ID_FLAGS(func, bpf_list_pop_back, KF_ACQUIRE | KF_RET_NULL)
>  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_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 c9557d3fb8dd..6dfd4afff1cf 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -12464,6 +12464,7 @@ enum special_kfunc_type {
>  	KF_bpf_list_del,
>  	KF_bpf_list_front,
>  	KF_bpf_list_back,
> +	KF_bpf_list_add_impl,
>  	KF_bpf_cast_to_kern_ctx,
>  	KF_bpf_rdonly_cast,
>  	KF_bpf_rcu_read_lock,
> @@ -12525,6 +12526,7 @@ BTF_ID(func, bpf_list_pop_back)
>  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_cast_to_kern_ctx)
>  BTF_ID(func, bpf_rdonly_cast)
>  BTF_ID(func, bpf_rcu_read_lock)
> @@ -13000,7 +13002,8 @@ static bool is_bpf_list_api_kfunc(u32 btf_id)
>  	       btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_pop_back] ||
>  	       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_back] ||
> +	       btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_add_impl];
>  }
>  
>  static bool is_bpf_rbtree_api_kfunc(u32 btf_id)
> @@ -13122,7 +13125,8 @@ static bool check_kfunc_is_graph_node_api(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>  	case BPF_LIST_NODE:
>  		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_del] ||
> +		       kfunc_btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_add_impl]);
>  		break;
>  	case BPF_RB_NODE:
>  		ret = (kfunc_btf_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_remove] ||
> @@ -14264,6 +14268,7 @@ static int check_kfunc_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn,
>  
>  	if (meta.func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_push_front_impl] ||
>  	    meta.func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_push_back_impl] ||
> +	    meta.func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_add_impl] ||
>  	    meta.func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_add_impl]) {
>  		release_ref_obj_id = regs[BPF_REG_2].ref_obj_id;
>  		insn_aux->insert_off = regs[BPF_REG_2].off;
> @@ -23230,13 +23235,14 @@ static int fixup_kfunc_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn,
>  		*cnt = 3;
>  	} else if (desc->func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_push_back_impl] ||
>  		   desc->func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_push_front_impl] ||
> +		   desc->func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_add_impl] ||
>  		   desc->func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_add_impl]) {
>  		struct btf_struct_meta *kptr_struct_meta = env->insn_aux_data[insn_idx].kptr_struct_meta;
>  		int struct_meta_reg = BPF_REG_3;
>  		int node_offset_reg = BPF_REG_4;
>  
> -		/* rbtree_add has extra 'less' arg, so args-to-fixup are in diff regs */

Why drop this comment?

Please add a comment explaining the reason for adding the
KF_bpf_list_add_impl check here.

Thanks,
Leon

> -		if (desc->func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_add_impl]) {
> +		if (desc->func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_add_impl] ||
> +		    desc->func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_add_impl]) {
>  			struct_meta_reg = BPF_REG_4;
>  			node_offset_reg = BPF_REG_5;
>  		}


  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-03-04  3:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-03-03 13:52 [PATCH v4 0/6] bpf: Extend the bpf_list family of APIs Chengkaitao
2026-03-03 13:52 ` [PATCH v4 1/6] bpf: Introduce the bpf_list_del kfunc Chengkaitao
2026-03-04  3:27   ` Leon Hwang
2026-03-03 13:52 ` [PATCH v4 2/6] selftests/bpf: Add test cases for bpf_list_del Chengkaitao
2026-03-04  3:27   ` Leon Hwang
2026-03-03 13:52 ` [PATCH v4 3/6] bpf: add bpf_list_add_impl to insert node after a given list node Chengkaitao
2026-03-03 14:40   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-03-04  3:29   ` Leon Hwang [this message]
2026-03-03 13:52 ` [PATCH v4 4/6] selftests/bpf: Add test case for bpf_list_add_impl Chengkaitao
2026-03-03 13:52 ` [PATCH v4 5/6] bpf: add bpf_list_is_first/last/empty kfuncs Chengkaitao
2026-03-04  3:30   ` Leon Hwang
2026-03-03 13:52 ` [PATCH v4 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=ac769b90-262d-43de-85fc-7d47775b0a4a@linux.dev \
    --to=leon.hwang@linux.dev \
    --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