From: bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org
To: wanjay@amazon.com,bpf@vger.kernel.org,ast@kernel.org,daniel@iogearbox.net,andrii@kernel.org,eddyz87@gmail.com,memxor@gmail.com
Cc: ihor.solodrai@linux.dev,almagui@kernel.org,martin.lau@linux.dev,yonghong.song@linux.dev,jolsa@kernel.org,rostedt@goodmis.org,mhiramat@kernel.org,mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org,nathan@kernel.org,nsc@kernel.org,linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org,arnd@arndb.de,linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,x86@kernel.org,linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,abuehaze@amazon.com,doebel@amazon.de,mpohlack@amazon.de,jay.wang.upstream@gmail.com,ast@kernel.org,andrii@kernel.org,daniel@iogearbox.net,martin.lau@kernel.org,eddyz87@gmail.com,yonghong.song@linux.dev,mason@kernel.org,ihor.solodrai@linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 10/13] bpf: defer kfunc and struct_ops registrations until first BTF use
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2026 13:55:44 +0000 (UTC) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <33ce2cfacb0d57a90dfe08484cdf752e0f66d3e620292a0a891c816e29aa21e6@mail.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261031130959.23472-11-wanjay@amazon.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5444 bytes --]
> bpf: defer kfunc and struct_ops registrations until first BTF use
TL;DR:
- btf_get_fd_by_id() may return an fd for a half-built vmlinux BTF after a
failed -ENOMEM parse round, possibly racing with struct_ops table updates
- a permanent -ENOMEM may be retried forever, with the queue never dropped
- Co-developed-by lacks a Signed-off-by
> bpf: defer kfunc and struct_ops registrations until first BTF use
>
> [ ... ]
>
> Co-developed-by: Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev>
> TODO-NEEDS-IHOR: Signed-off-by: Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev>
> Signed-off-by: Jay Wang <wanjay@amazon.com>
The Co-developed-by: tag is followed by a "TODO-NEEDS-IHOR: Signed-off-by:"
placeholder instead of a real Signed-off-by: line from the co-developer.
Should the placeholder be resolved, or the Co-developed-by: tag dropped,
before this is sent? Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst expects a
Co-developed-by: to be followed immediately by that co-author's
Signed-off-by:.
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/btf.c b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> --- a/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -6928,33 +6928,70 @@ struct btf *btf_parse_vmlinux(void)
> struct btf *bpf_get_btf_vmlinux(void)
> {
[ ... ]
> + mutex_lock(&btf_vmlinux_lock);
> + btf = btf_vmlinux;
> + if (!btf) {
> + btf = btf_parse_vmlinux();
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF_LAZY) && !IS_ERR(btf)) {
[ ... ]
> + /* a lazy parse that ran out of memory is retried by the next caller */
> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF_LAZY) || btf != ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM)) {
> + if (IS_ERR(btf))
> + btf_drop_all_deferred(PTR_ERR(btf));
> /*
> * Order the parsed BTF contents and the globals the
> * parse populated (e.g. bpf_ctx_convert.t) before
> * the pointer publication. Pairs with the acquire
> * on the lockless fast path above.
> */
> smp_store_release(&btf_vmlinux, btf);
> }
Is every -ENOMEM from btf_parse_vmlinux() really transient here?
btf_vmlinux_data() in kernel/bpf/sysfs_btf.c, from the previous patch in the
series, also returns -ENOMEM for a permanent failure. Its comment says
"ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM) if that cannot be done (now: memory; for good: no copy of
the compressed BTF)". If the vmalloc() in btf_vmlinux_keep_zst() fails,
btf_zst becomes NULL and every later call ends up at:
if (!btf_zst)
return ERR_PTR(btf_vmlinux_broken ? -EINVAL : -ENOMEM);
From then on bpf_get_btf_vmlinux() never reaches btf_drop_all_deferred() and
never publishes btf_vmlinux. Every queued built-in registration and its
kmemdup() copy is kept, no "dropped N deferred BTF registrations" warning is
printed, and each later caller (verifier, BPF_BTF_GET_FD_BY_ID, the
CAP_SYS_ADMIN BPF_BTF_GET_NEXT_ID, module BTF parse) takes btf_vmlinux_lock
again to re-run a parse that cannot succeed.
This also looks different from the commit message, which says "If the vmlinux
BTF fails for good, the queue is dropped with a warning."
Should btf_vmlinux_data() return a different errno for the permanent case, or
should this retry test be able to tell the two cases apart?
[ ... ]
> @@ -9300,12 +9337,16 @@ int btf_get_info_by_fd(const struct btf *btf,
> int btf_get_fd_by_id(u32 id)
> {
> struct btf *btf;
> int fd;
>
> + /* kernel BTFs get their ids while parsed, before they are published */
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF_LAZY))
> + bpf_get_btf_vmlinux();
> +
> rcu_read_lock();
> btf = idr_find(&btf_idr, id);
> if (!btf || !refcount_inc_not_zero(&btf->refcnt))
> btf = ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
> rcu_read_unlock();
Can this hand out an fd for a vmlinux BTF that is still being built?
The return value of bpf_get_btf_vmlinux() is dropped here. If this task's
own parse round fails with -ENOMEM (the commit message names the case where
the task is being killed and vmalloc() gives up), btf_vmlinux stays NULL and
btf_vmlinux_lock is released. Another task can then take the lock and start
a new round.
btf_parse_vmlinux() gives that new BTF an id in btf_idr via btf_alloc_id()
before btf_apply_deferred() runs, so the idr_find() plus
refcount_inc_not_zero() above can return it while its kfunc and struct_ops
tables are still being filled in under btf_vmlinux_lock.
That seems to conflict with the commit message ("Nobody else sees btf_vmlinux
before its kfuncs and struct_ops are in"), and with the assumption in the
drop path of bpf_get_btf_vmlinux():
/* nothing saw it: drop it with what was applied to it */
bpf_ctx_convert.t = NULL;
btf_put(btf);
If the second round also fails with -ENOMEM, that btf_put() takes the
refcount from 2 to 1. The BTF is not freed and btf_free_id() is not called,
so a second, partially applied "vmlinux" BTF stays in btf_idr and can be
found by BPF_BTF_GET_NEXT_ID and BPF_BTF_GET_FD_BY_ID until that fd is
closed.
The fd could also be used while the other round is still applying
registrations. For example, BPF_PROG_LOAD accepts a kernel BTF fd as
attach_btf_obj_fd, and for struct_ops programs the verifier then walks
btf->struct_ops_tab while btf_add_struct_ops() may krealloc() it.
Would returning the error from btf_get_fd_by_id() when bpf_get_btf_vmlinux()
fails (or at least on -ENOMEM) close this?
---
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/41205212136
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-31 13:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-31 13:09 [PATCH bpf-next 00/13] bpf: keep the vmlinux BTF compressed until first use (CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF_LAZY) to save ~6 MB memory Jay Wang
2026-10-31 13:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 01/13] bpf: match program context types by name without vmlinux BTF Jay Wang
2026-10-31 13:43 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-10-31 13:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 02/13] bpf: fetch the vmlinux BTF where kernel types enter a program Jay Wang
2026-10-31 13:55 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-10-31 13:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 03/13] bpf: check CAP_SYS_ADMIN before looking up bpffs delegation names Jay Wang
2026-10-31 13:43 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-10-31 17:03 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-10-31 13:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 04/13] bpf: move bpf_get_btf_vmlinux() to btf.c Jay Wang
2026-10-31 13:43 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-10-31 13:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 05/13] bpf: let btf_parse_module() adopt the caller's copy of the module BTF Jay Wang
2026-10-31 13:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 06/13] bpf: look up the struct_ops common value type in the given BTF Jay Wang
2026-10-31 13:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 07/13] bpf: parse the vmlinux BTF before taking cand_cache_mutex Jay Wang
2026-10-31 13:43 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-10-31 13:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 08/13] tracing: parse the vmlinux BTF when BTF-typed output is enabled Jay Wang
2026-10-31 13:43 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-10-31 13:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 09/13] bpf: keep the vmlinux BTF zstd-compressed in the kernel image Jay Wang
2026-10-31 13:55 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-10-31 13:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 10/13] bpf: defer kfunc and struct_ops registrations until first BTF use Jay Wang
2026-10-31 13:55 ` bot+bpf-ci [this message]
2026-10-31 17:07 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-10-31 13:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 11/13] bpf: keep module BTF until the vmlinux BTF is parsed Jay Wang
2026-10-31 13:55 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-10-31 17:10 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-10-31 13:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 12/13] selftests/bpf: keep ksyms and linked_vars working without __start_BTF Jay Wang
2026-10-31 13:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next 13/13] Documentation/bpf: describe CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF_LAZY Jay Wang
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=33ce2cfacb0d57a90dfe08484cdf752e0f66d3e620292a0a891c816e29aa21e6@mail.kernel.org \
--to=bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org \
--cc=abuehaze@amazon.com \
--cc=almagui@kernel.org \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=doebel@amazon.de \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
--cc=jay.wang.upstream@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=mason@kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=mpohlack@amazon.de \
--cc=nathan@kernel.org \
--cc=nsc@kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=wanjay@amazon.com \
--cc=x86@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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®