netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: 'Alexei Starovoitov ' <ast@kernel.org>,
	'Andrii Nakryiko ' <andrii@kernel.org>,
	'Daniel Borkmann ' <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com,
	'Amery Hung ' <ameryhung@gmail.com>
Subject: [RFC PATCH bpf-next 01/12] bpf: Check KF_bpf_rbtree_add_impl for the "case KF_ARG_PTR_TO_RB_NODE"
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 15:46:39 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250418224652.105998-2-martin.lau@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250418224652.105998-1-martin.lau@linux.dev>

From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>

In a later patch, two new kfuncs will take the bpf_rb_node pointer arg.

struct bpf_rb_node *bpf_rbtree_left(struct bpf_rb_root *root,
				    struct bpf_rb_node *node);
struct bpf_rb_node *bpf_rbtree_right(struct bpf_rb_root *root,
				     struct bpf_rb_node *node);

In the check_kfunc_call, there is a "case KF_ARG_PTR_TO_RB_NODE"
to check if the reg->type should be an allocated pointer or should be
a non_owning_ref.

The later patch will need to ensure that the bpf_rb_node pointer passing
to the new bpf_rbtree_{left,right} must be a non_owning_ref. This
should be the same requirement as the existing bpf_rbtree_remove.

This patch swaps the current "if else" statement. Instead of checking
the bpf_rbtree_remove, it checks the bpf_rbtree_add. Then the new
bpf_rbtree_{left,right} will fall into the "else" case to make
the later patch simpler. bpf_rbtree_add should be the only
one that needs an allocated pointer.

This should be a no-op change considering there are only two kfunc(s)
taking bpf_rb_node pointer arg, rbtree_add and rbtree_remove.

Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 18 +++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 54c6953a8b84..2e1ce7debc16 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -13200,22 +13200,22 @@ static int check_kfunc_args(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_kfunc_call_
 				return ret;
 			break;
 		case KF_ARG_PTR_TO_RB_NODE:
-			if (meta->func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_remove]) {
-				if (!type_is_non_owning_ref(reg->type) || reg->ref_obj_id) {
-					verbose(env, "rbtree_remove node input must be non-owning ref\n");
+			if (meta->func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_add_impl]) {
+				if (reg->type != (PTR_TO_BTF_ID | MEM_ALLOC)) {
+					verbose(env, "arg#%d expected pointer to allocated object\n", i);
 					return -EINVAL;
 				}
-				if (in_rbtree_lock_required_cb(env)) {
-					verbose(env, "rbtree_remove not allowed in rbtree cb\n");
+				if (!reg->ref_obj_id) {
+					verbose(env, "allocated object must be referenced\n");
 					return -EINVAL;
 				}
 			} else {
-				if (reg->type != (PTR_TO_BTF_ID | MEM_ALLOC)) {
-					verbose(env, "arg#%d expected pointer to allocated object\n", i);
+				if (!type_is_non_owning_ref(reg->type) || reg->ref_obj_id) {
+					verbose(env, "rbtree_remove node input must be non-owning ref\n");
 					return -EINVAL;
 				}
-				if (!reg->ref_obj_id) {
-					verbose(env, "allocated object must be referenced\n");
+				if (in_rbtree_lock_required_cb(env)) {
+					verbose(env, "rbtree_remove not allowed in rbtree cb\n");
 					return -EINVAL;
 				}
 			}
-- 
2.47.1


  reply	other threads:[~2025-04-18 22:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-04-18 22:46 [RFC PATCH bpf-next 00/12] bpf: A fq example similar to the kernel sch_fq.c implementation Martin KaFai Lau
2025-04-18 22:46 ` Martin KaFai Lau [this message]
2025-04-22  1:05   ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 01/12] bpf: Check KF_bpf_rbtree_add_impl for the "case KF_ARG_PTR_TO_RB_NODE" Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-04-18 22:46 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 02/12] bpf: Simplify reg0 marking for the rbtree kfuncs that return a bpf_rb_node pointer Martin KaFai Lau
2025-04-22  1:14   ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-04-18 22:46 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 03/12] bpf: Add bpf_rbtree_{root,left,right} kfunc Martin KaFai Lau
2025-04-22  1:43   ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-04-18 22:46 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 04/12] selftests/bpf: Adjust failure message in the rbtree_fail test Martin KaFai Lau
2025-04-22  1:44   ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-04-18 22:46 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 05/12] bpf: Allow refcounted bpf_rb_node used in bpf_rbtree_{remove,left,right} Martin KaFai Lau
2025-04-22  2:32   ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-04-18 22:46 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 06/12] selftests/bpf: Adjust test that does not allow refcounted node in rbtree_remove Martin KaFai Lau
2025-04-22  2:36   ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-04-22  2:48     ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-04-18 22:46 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 07/12] selftests/bpf: Add rbtree_search test Martin KaFai Lau
2025-04-22  3:03   ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-04-18 22:46 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 08/12] bpf: Simplify reg0 marking for the list kfuncs that return a bpf_list_node pointer Martin KaFai Lau
2025-04-22  3:05   ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-04-18 22:46 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 09/12] bpf: Add bpf_list_{front,back} kfunc Martin KaFai Lau
2025-04-22  3:07   ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-04-18 22:46 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 10/12] selftests/bpf: Add test for bpf_list_{front,back} Martin KaFai Lau
2025-04-22  3:08   ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2025-04-25 23:28     ` Martin KaFai Lau
2025-04-18 22:46 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 11/12] bpf: net: Add a qdisc kfunc to set sk_pacing_status Martin KaFai Lau
2025-04-18 22:46 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next 12/12] selftests/bpf: A bpf fq implementation similar to the kernel sch_fq Martin KaFai Lau
2025-04-25  0:13   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2025-04-25 23:50     ` Martin KaFai Lau

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=20250418224652.105998-2-martin.lau@linux.dev \
    --to=martin.lau@linux.dev \
    --cc=ameryhung@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    /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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).