Re: [RFC v2 5/5] io_uring/bpf: add basic kfunc helpers

[Pavel Begunkov]

On 6/13/25 20:51, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 9:11 AM Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...>>
> > It's valid within a single run of the callback but shouldn't cross
> > into another invocation. Specifically, it's protected by the lock,
> > but that can be tuned. Does that match with what PTR_TO_MEM expects?
>
> yes. PTR_TO_MEM lasts for duration of the prog.
>
> > I can add refcounting for longer term pinning, maybe to store it
> > as a bpf map or whatever is the right way, but I'd rather avoid
> > anything expensive in the kfunc as that'll likely be called on
> > every program run.
>
> yeah. let's not add any refcounting.
>
> It sounds like you want something similar to
> __bpf_kfunc __u8 *
> hid_bpf_get_data(struct hid_bpf_ctx *ctx, unsigned int offset, const
> size_t rdwr_buf_size)
>
> we have a special hack for it already in the verifier.
> The argument need to be called rdwr_buf_size,
> then it will be used to establish the range of PTR_TO_MEM.
> It has to be run-time constant.

Great, I can just use that

> What you're proposing with "__retsz" is a cleaner version of the same.
> But consider bpf_dynptr_from_io_uring(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
> it can create a dynamically sized region,
> and later use bpf_dynptr_slice_rdwr() to get writeable chunk of it.
>
> I feel that __retsz approach may actually be a better fit at the end,
> if you're ok with constant arg.
I took a quick look, 16MB sounds a bit restrictive long term. I'll
just go for rdwr_buf_size while experimenting and hopefully will be
able to make a more educated choice later

--
Pavel Begunkov