linux-kernel - [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/4] bpf: Document usage of the new __bpf

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed,  1 Feb 2023 11:30:14 -0600
From:   David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>
To:     bpf@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org,
        martin.lau@...ux.dev, song@...nel.org, yhs@...a.com,
        john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...gle.com,
        haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...a.com, corbet@....net, hch@...radead.org,
        acme@...nel.org, alan.maguire@...cle.com
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/4] bpf: Document usage of the new __bpf_kfunc macro

Now that the __bpf_kfunc macro has been added to linux/btf.h, include a
blurb about it in the kfuncs.rst file. In order for the macro to
successfully render with .. kernel-doc, we'll also need to add it to the
c_id_attributes array.

Acked-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>
---
 Documentation/bpf/kfuncs.rst | 20 +++++++++++++++++---
 Documentation/conf.py        |  3 +++
 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/kfuncs.rst b/Documentation/bpf/kfuncs.rst
index 1a683225d080..0bd07b39c2a4 100644
--- a/Documentation/bpf/kfuncs.rst
+++ b/Documentation/bpf/kfuncs.rst
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ An example is given below::
         __diag_ignore_all("-Wmissing-prototypes",
                           "Global kfuncs as their definitions will be in BTF");
 
-        struct task_struct *bpf_find_get_task_by_vpid(pid_t nr)
+        __bpf_kfunc struct task_struct *bpf_find_get_task_by_vpid(pid_t nr)
         {
                 return find_get_task_by_vpid(nr);
         }
@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ kfunc with a __tag, where tag may be one of the supported annotations.
 This annotation is used to indicate a memory and size pair in the argument list.
 An example is given below::
 
-        void bpf_memzero(void *mem, int mem__sz)
+        __bpf_kfunc void bpf_memzero(void *mem, int mem__sz)
         {
         ...
         }
@@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ safety of the program.
 
 An example is given below::
 
-        void *bpf_obj_new(u32 local_type_id__k, ...)
+        __bpf_kfunc void *bpf_obj_new(u32 local_type_id__k, ...)
         {
         ...
         }
@@ -125,6 +125,20 @@ flags on a set of kfuncs as follows::
 This set encodes the BTF ID of each kfunc listed above, and encodes the flags
 along with it. Ofcourse, it is also allowed to specify no flags.
 
+kfunc definitions should also always be annotated with the ``__bpf_kfunc``
+macro. This prevents issues such as the compiler inlining the kfunc if it's a
+static kernel function, or the function being elided in an LTO build as it's
+not used in the rest of the kernel. Developers should not manually add
+annotations to their kfunc to prevent these issues. If an annotation is
+required to prevent such an issue with your kfunc, it is a bug and should be
+added to the definition of the macro so that other kfuncs are similarly
+protected. An example is given below::
+
+        __bpf_kfunc struct task_struct *bpf_get_task_pid(s32 pid)
+        {
+        ...
+        }
+
 2.4.1 KF_ACQUIRE flag
 ---------------------
 
diff --git a/Documentation/conf.py b/Documentation/conf.py
index d927737e3c10..8b4e5451a02d 100644
--- a/Documentation/conf.py
+++ b/Documentation/conf.py
@@ -116,6 +116,9 @@ if major >= 3:
 
             # include/linux/linkage.h:
             "asmlinkage",
+
+            # include/linux/btf.h
+            "__bpf_kfunc",
         ]
 
 else:
-- 
2.39.0