Re: [PATCH RFC bpf-next v3 07/16] bpf/helpers: mark the callback of bpf_timer_set_sleepable_cb() as sleepable

[Eduard Zingerman]

On Wed, 2024-02-21 at 17:25 +0100, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:

[...]

> @@ -626,6 +627,7 @@ struct bpf_subprog_info {
>  	bool is_async_cb: 1;
>  	bool is_exception_cb: 1;
>  	bool args_cached: 1;
> +	bool is_sleepable: 1;
>  
>  	u8 arg_cnt;
>  	struct bpf_subprog_arg_info args[MAX_BPF_FUNC_REG_ARGS];

[...]

> @@ -2421,6 +2424,7 @@ static struct bpf_verifier_state *push_async_cb(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>  	 * Initialize it similar to do_check_common().
>  	 */
>  	elem->st.branches = 1;
> +	elem->st.in_sleepable = env->subprog_info[subprog].is_sleepable;
>  	frame = kzalloc(sizeof(*frame), GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!frame)
>  		goto err;

[...]

> @@ -9478,6 +9483,7 @@ static int push_callback_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *ins
>  
>  		/* there is no real recursion here. timer callbacks are async */
>  		env->subprog_info[subprog].is_async_cb = true;
> +		env->subprog_info[subprog].is_sleepable = is_bpf_timer_set_sleepable_cb_kfunc(insn->imm);
>  		async_cb = push_async_cb(env, env->subprog_info[subprog].start,
>  					 insn_idx, subprog);

I'd make is_sleepable a parameter for push_async_cb() instead of a field
in struct bpf_subprog_info.
I had to spend some time convincing myself that bpf_subprog_info->is_sleepable
does not have to be computed before do_check() in check_cfg(),
or what would happen if same callback is passed as both sleepable and
non-sleepable callback. These questions won't arise if this is a parameter.

[...]