Skip to content

Conversation

@ameryhung
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

Allow verifier to fixup kfuncs in kernel module to support kfuncs with
__prog arguments. Currently, special kfuncs and kfuncs with __prog
arguments are kernel kfuncs. Allowing kernel module kfuncs should not
affect existing kfunc fixup as kernel module kfuncs have BTF IDs greater
than kernel kfuncs' BTF IDs.

Signed-off-by: Amery Hung <[email protected]>
Add a new BPF command BPF_PROG_ASSOC_STRUCT_OPS to allow associating
a BPF program with a struct_ops map. This command takes a file
descriptor of a struct_ops map and a BPF program and set
prog->aux->st_ops_assoc to the kdata of the struct_ops map.

The command does not accept a struct_ops program nor a non-struct_ops
map. Programs of a struct_ops map is automatically associated with the
map during map update. If a program is shared between two struct_ops
maps, prog->aux->st_ops_assoc will be poisoned to indicate that the
associated struct_ops is ambiguous. The pointer, once poisoned, cannot
be reset since we have lost track of associated struct_ops. For other
program types, the associated struct_ops map, once set, cannot be
changed later. This restriction may be lifted in the future if there is
a use case.

A kernel helper bpf_prog_get_assoc_struct_ops() can be used to retrieve
the associated struct_ops pointer. The returned pointer, if not NULL, is
guaranteed to be valid and point to a fully updated struct_ops struct.
For struct_ops program reused in multiple struct_ops map, the return
will be NULL.

To make sure the returned pointer to be valid, the command increases the
refcount of the map for every associated non-struct_ops programs. For
struct_ops programs, the destruction of a struct_ops map already waits for
its BPF programs to finish running. A later patch will further make sure
the map will not be freed when an async callback schedule from struct_ops
is running.

struct_ops implementers should note that the struct_ops returned may or
may not be attached. The struct_ops implementer will be responsible for
tracking and checking the state of the associated struct_ops map if the
use case requires an attached struct_ops.

Signed-off-by: Amery Hung <[email protected]>
Take a refcount of the associated struct_ops map to prevent the map from
being freed when an async callback scheduled from a struct_ops program
runs.

Since struct_ops programs do not take refcounts on the struct_ops map,
it is possible for a struct_ops map to be freed when an async callback
scheduled from it runs. To prevent this, take a refcount on prog->aux->
st_ops_assoc and save it in a newly created struct bpf_async_res for
every async mechanism. The reference needs to be preserved in
bpf_async_res since prog->aux->st_ops_assoc can be poisoned anytime
and reference leak could happen.

bpf_async_res will contain a async callback's BPF program and resources
related to the BPF program. The resources will be acquired when
registering a callback and released when cancelled or when the map
associated with the callback is freed.

Also rename drop_prog_refcnt to bpf_async_cb_reset to better reflect
what it now does.

Signed-off-by: Amery Hung <[email protected]>
Add low-level wrapper and libbpf API for BPF_PROG_ASSOC_STRUCT_OPS
command in the bpf() syscall.

Signed-off-by: Amery Hung <[email protected]>
@ameryhung ameryhung force-pushed the st_ops_assoc_prog_v5 branch from 95ab052 to 3e16a3b Compare November 4, 2025 06:04
Test BPF_PROG_ASSOC_STRUCT_OPS command that associates a BPF program
with a struct_ops. The test follows the same logic in commit
ba7000f ("selftests/bpf: Test multi_st_ops and calling kfuncs from
different programs"), but instead of using map id to identify a specific
struct_ops, this test uses the new BPF command to associate a struct_ops
with a program.

The test consists of two sets of almost identical struct_ops maps and BPF
programs associated with the map. Their only difference is the unique
value returned by bpf_testmod_multi_st_ops::test_1().

The test first loads the programs and associates them with struct_ops
maps. Then, it exercises the BPF programs. They will in turn call kfunc
bpf_kfunc_multi_st_ops_test_1_prog_arg() to trigger test_1() of the
associated struct_ops map, and then check if the right unique value is
returned.

Signed-off-by: Amery Hung <[email protected]>
Add a test to make sure implicit struct_ops association does not
break backward compatibility nor return incorrect struct_ops.
struct_ops programs should still be allowed to be reused in
different struct_ops map. The associated struct_ops map set implicitly
however will be poisoned. Trying to read it through the helper
bpf_prog_get_assoc_struct_ops() should result in a NULL pointer.

While recursion of test_1() cannot happen due to the associated
struct_ops being ambiguois, explicitly check for it to prevent stack
overflow if the test regresses.

Signed-off-by: Amery Hung <[email protected]>
Make sure 1) a timer callback can also reference the associated
struct_ops, and then make sure 2) the timer callback cannot get a
dangled pointer to the struct_ops when the map is freed.

The test schedules a timer callback from a struct_ops program since
struct_ops programs do not pin the map. It is possible for the timer
callback to run after the map is freed. The timer callback calls a
kfunc that runs .test_1() of the associated struct_ops, which should
return MAP_MAGIC when the map is still alive or -1 when the map is
gone.

The first subtest added in this patch schedules the timer callback to
run immediately, while the map is still alive. The second subtest added
schedules the callback to run 500ms after syscall_prog runs and then
frees the map right after syscall_prog runs. Both subtests then wait
until the callback runs to check the return of the kfunc.

Signed-off-by: Amery Hung <[email protected]>
@ameryhung ameryhung force-pushed the st_ops_assoc_prog_v5 branch from 3e16a3b to f9dfc84 Compare November 4, 2025 18:19
@kernel-patches-daemon-bpf kernel-patches-daemon-bpf bot force-pushed the bpf-next_base branch 3 times, most recently from de0745f to efe6edf Compare November 6, 2025 01:56
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant