The Linux Kernel Mailing List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>
To: Kaitao Cheng <kaitao.cheng@linux.dev>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
	Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
	Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>,
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
	Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
	Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
	Emil Tsalapatis <emil@etsalapatis.com>,
	Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
	Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/3] bpf: Allow selected kfuncs under bpf_spin_lock
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2026 00:51:08 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b1825aab-b1d2-40c4-a74c-bb05ce50327d@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260805153340.34776-1-kaitao.cheng@linux.dev>

On 2026/8/5 23:33, Kaitao Cheng wrote:
> The verifier currently has a hard-coded allowlist of kfuncs that may be
> called while a BPF program holds a bpf_spin_lock. This works for the
> small set of built-in kfuncs known to the verifier, but it does not give
> kfunc providers a registration-time way to declare that a kfunc is safe
> in such a region. In particular, module kfuncs cannot be added to that
> allowlist without changing verifier code.
> 
> This series adds a new KF_SPINLOCK_SAFE kfunc flag and teaches the
> verifier to use kfunc registration metadata when deciding whether a
> kfunc call is allowed while a bpf_spin_lock is held.
> 
> The built-in kfuncs that are currently accepted by the verifier's
> lock-held allowlist are annotated with the new flag. This preserves the
> existing behavior while removing the verifier-side category checks and
> uses the same mechanism for built-in and module kfuncs.
> 
> The selftest coverage marks one bpf_testmod kfunc as KF_SPINLOCK_SAFE
> and verifies that it can be called under a bpf_spin_lock. It also calls
> another registered but unmarked bpf_testmod kfunc under the lock and
> checks that the verifier rejects it.
> 
> Changes in v2:
> - Rename KF_SPIN_LOCK to KF_SPINLOCK_SAFE. (Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi,
>   Leon Hwang)
> - Deprecate the verifier's lock-held allowlist mechanism and annotate the
>   relevant kfuncs uniformly with KF_SPINLOCK_SAFE (Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi)
> - Add selftests. (Leon Hwang)
> 
> Link to v1:
> https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/DKG0YUDSTBUY.1X220287HT9V3@gmail.com/
> 
> Kaitao Cheng (3):
>   bpf: Add KF_SPINLOCK_SAFE flag for kfuncs under bpf_spin_lock
>   bpf: Mark existing lock-safe kfuncs with KF_SPINLOCK_SAFE
>   selftests/bpf: Test module kfunc calls under spin lock
> 
>  include/linux/btf.h                           |  1 +
>  kernel/bpf/arena.c                            |  6 +-
>  kernel/bpf/helpers.c                          | 56 ++++++++++---------
>  kernel/bpf/rqspinlock.c                       |  8 +--
>  kernel/bpf/verifier.c                         | 38 +++----------
>  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c     |  2 +
>  .../selftests/bpf/progs/kfunc_call_fail.c     | 12 ++++
>  .../selftests/bpf/progs/kfunc_call_test.c     | 12 ++++
>  .../selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c    |  2 +-
>  9 files changed, 72 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-)
> 


Nice to drop those 'is_*_kfunc()' helpers in verifier.

BTW, some of those kfuncs can be dropped from the special_kfunc_list.
That would be better.

Any way, this series looks good to me.

Acked-by: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>


  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-08-05 16:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-08-05 15:33 [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/3] bpf: Allow selected kfuncs under bpf_spin_lock Kaitao Cheng
2026-08-05 15:33 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/3] bpf: Add KF_SPINLOCK_SAFE flag for " Kaitao Cheng
2026-08-05 15:33 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/3] bpf: Mark existing lock-safe kfuncs with KF_SPINLOCK_SAFE Kaitao Cheng
2026-08-05 15:33 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/3] selftests/bpf: Test module kfunc calls under spin lock Kaitao Cheng
2026-08-05 16:51 ` Leon Hwang [this message]
2026-08-06  9:10 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/3] bpf: Allow selected kfuncs under bpf_spin_lock patchwork-bot+netdevbpf

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=b1825aab-b1d2-40c4-a74c-bb05ce50327d@linux.dev \
    --to=leon.hwang@linux.dev \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --cc=emil@etsalapatis.com \
    --cc=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
    --cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
    --cc=kaitao.cheng@linux.dev \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
    --cc=memxor@gmail.com \
    --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