在 2026/4/28 02:43, [email protected] 写道:
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
>> @@ -2570,6 +2570,16 @@ __bpf_kfunc int bpf_list_push_back_impl(struct
>> bpf_list_head *head,
>> return bpf_list_push_back(head, node, meta__ign, off);
>> }
>>
>> +__bpf_kfunc int bpf_list_add(struct bpf_list_head *head, struct
>> bpf_list_node *new,
>> + struct bpf_list_node *prev, struct btf_struct_meta
>> *meta,
>> + u64 off)
>> +{
>> + struct bpf_list_node_kern *n = (void *)new, *p = (void *)prev;
>> + struct list_head *prev_ptr = &p->list_head;
>> +
>> + return __bpf_list_add(n, head, &prev_ptr, meta ? meta->record : NULL,
>> off);
>> +}
>> +
>
> The 'prev' argument is described in the commit message as "must already be
> in the list." How can a BPF program obtain such a reference and pass it to
> this kfunc?
>
> A node already in the list is tracked by the verifier as a non-owning
> reference (PTR_TO_BTF_ID | MEM_ALLOC | NON_OWN_REF with ref_obj_id == 0).
> The typical way to obtain this is via bpf_list_front() or bpf_list_back(),
> which return non-owning references.
>
> However, check_kfunc_args() in kernel/bpf/verifier.c handles
> KF_ARG_PTR_TO_LIST_NODE by requiring:
>
> if (reg->type != (PTR_TO_BTF_ID | MEM_ALLOC)) {
> verbose(env, "%s expected pointer to allocated object\n", ...);
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> if (!reg->ref_obj_id) {
> verbose(env, "allocated object must be referenced\n");
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> This check rejects non-owning references. The 'prev' argument in R3 is
> typed as struct bpf_list_node *, so the verifier classifies it as
> KF_ARG_PTR_TO_LIST_NODE and applies this validation.
>
> Compare with KF_ARG_PTR_TO_RB_NODE, which distinguishes between insertion
> (requires owning ref) and other operations (allows non-owning refs):
>
> case KF_ARG_PTR_TO_RB_NODE:
> if (meta->func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_rbtree_add_impl]) {
> /* owning ref required */
> } else {
> /* non-owning or refcounted allowed */
> }
>
> Without a similar distinction for KF_ARG_PTR_TO_LIST_NODE, is there any
> valid BPF register state that satisfies both the verifier check and the
> runtime semantics stated in the commit message?
>
> It appears the API only works when 'prev' is an owning reference to a
> refcounted object still in the list. This is the pattern used in the
> selftests, but it limits the kfunc to a narrow use case that the commit
> message does not describe.
I have already fixed this issue in [PATCH bpf-next v10 7/8].
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> @@ -10742,6 +10742,7 @@ enum special_kfunc_type {
>> KF_bpf_list_push_front,
>> KF_bpf_list_push_back_impl,
>> KF_bpf_list_push_back,
>> + KF_bpf_list_add,
>> KF_bpf_list_pop_front,
>> KF_bpf_list_pop_back,
>> KF_bpf_list_del,
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> @@ -10923,7 +10925,8 @@ static bool is_bpf_list_push_kfunc(u32 func_id)
>> return func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_push_front] ||
>> func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_push_front_impl] ||
>> func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_push_back] ||
>> - func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_push_back_impl];
>> + func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_push_back_impl] ||
>> + func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_add];
>> }
>>
>> static bool is_bpf_rbtree_add_kfunc(u32 func_id)
>> @@ -19228,8 +19231,11 @@ struct bpf_insn addr[2] = { BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_2,
>> (long)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 */
>> - if (is_bpf_rbtree_add_kfunc(desc->func_id)) {
>> + /* list_add/rbtree_add have an extra arg (prev/less),
>> + * so args-to-fixup are in diff regs.
>> + */
>> + if (desc->func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_list_add] ||
>> + is_bpf_rbtree_add_kfunc(desc->func_id)) {
>> struct_meta_reg = BPF_REG_4;
>> node_offset_reg = BPF_REG_5;
>> }
>
>
> ---
> AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
> See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md
>
> CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/25009536772
--
Thanks
Kaitao Cheng
