Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 01/16] bpf: Convert bpf_selem_unlink_map to failable

From: Martin KaFai Lau <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2026 12:29:00 -0800

On 12/18/25 9:56 AM, Amery Hung wrote:
> To prepare for changing bpf_local_storage_map_bucket::lock to rqspinlock,
> convert bpf_selem_unlink_map() to failable. It still always succeeds and
> returns 0 for now.
> 
> Since some operations updating local storage cannot fail in the middle,
> open-code bpf_selem_unlink_map() to take the b->lock before the
> operation. There are two such locations:
> 
> - bpf_local_storage_alloc()
> 
>    The first selem will be unlinked from smap if cmpxchg owner_storage_ptr
>    fails, which should not fail. Therefore, hold b->lock when linking
>    until allocation complete. Helpers that assume b->lock is held by
>    callers are introduced: bpf_selem_link_map_nolock() and
>    bpf_selem_unlink_map_nolock().
> 
> - bpf_local_storage_update()
> 
>    The three step update process: link_map(new_selem),
>    link_storage(new_selem), and unlink_map(old_selem) should not fail in
>    the middle.
> 
> In bpf_selem_unlink(), bpf_selem_unlink_map() and
> bpf_selem_unlink_storage() should either all succeed or fail as a whole
> instead of failing in the middle. So, return if unlink_map() failed.
> 
> In bpf_local_storage_destroy(), since it cannot deadlock with itself or
> bpf_local_storage_map_free() who the function might be racing with,
> retry if bpf_selem_unlink_map() fails due to rqspinlock returning
> errors.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Amery Hung <[email-masked]>
> ---
>   kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c | 64 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>   1 file changed, 55 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c
> index e2fe6c32822b..4e3f227fd634 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c
> @@ -347,7 +347,7 @@ void bpf_selem_link_storage_nolock(struct bpf_local_storage *local_storage,
>   	hlist_add_head_rcu(&selem->snode, &local_storage->list);
>   }
>   
> -static void bpf_selem_unlink_map(struct bpf_local_storage_elem *selem)
> +static int bpf_selem_unlink_map(struct bpf_local_storage_elem *selem)

This will end up only be used by bpf_selem_unlink(). It may as well 
remove this function and open code in the bpf_selem_unlink(). I think it 
may depend on how patch 10 goes and also if it makes sense to remove 
bpf_selem_"link"_map and bpf_selem_unlink_map_nolock also, so treat it 
as a nit note for now.

>   {
>   	struct bpf_local_storage_map *smap;
>   	struct bpf_local_storage_map_bucket *b;
> @@ -355,7 +355,7 @@ static void bpf_selem_unlink_map(struct bpf_local_storage_elem *selem)
>   
>   	if (unlikely(!selem_linked_to_map_lockless(selem)))

In the later patch where both local_storage's and map-bucket's locks 
must be acquired, will this check still be needed if there is an earlier 
check that ensures the selem is still linked to the local_storage? It 
does not matter in terms of perf, but I think it will help code reading 
in the future for the common code path (i.e. the code paths other than 
bpf_local_storage_destroy and bpf_local_storage_map_free).

>   		/* selem has already be unlinked from smap */
> -		return;
> +		return 0;
>   
>   	smap = rcu_dereference_check(SDATA(selem)->smap, bpf_rcu_lock_held());
>   	b = select_bucket(smap, selem);
> @@ -363,6 +363,14 @@ static void bpf_selem_unlink_map(struct bpf_local_storage_elem *selem)
>   	if (likely(selem_linked_to_map(selem)))
>   		hlist_del_init_rcu(&selem->map_node);
>   	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&b->lock, flags);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void bpf_selem_unlink_map_nolock(struct bpf_local_storage_elem *selem)
> +{
> +	if (likely(selem_linked_to_map(selem)))

Take this chance to remove the selem_linked_to_map() check. 
hlist_del_init_rcu has the same check.

> +		hlist_del_init_rcu(&selem->map_node);
>   }
>   
>   void bpf_selem_link_map(struct bpf_local_storage_map *smap,
> @@ -376,13 +384,26 @@ void bpf_selem_link_map(struct bpf_local_storage_map *smap,
>   	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&b->lock, flags);
>   }
>   
> +static void bpf_selem_link_map_nolock(struct bpf_local_storage_map *smap,
> +				      struct bpf_local_storage_elem *selem,
> +				      struct bpf_local_storage_map_bucket *b)
> +{
> +	RCU_INIT_POINTER(SDATA(selem)->smap, smap);

Is it needed? bpf_selem_alloc should have init the SDATA(selem)->smap.

> +	hlist_add_head_rcu(&selem->map_node, &b->list);
> +}
> +

[ ... ]

> @@ -574,20 +603,37 @@ bpf_local_storage_update(void *owner, struct bpf_local_storage_map *smap,
>   		goto unlock;
>   	}
>   
> +	b = select_bucket(smap, selem);
> +
> +	if (old_sdata) {
> +		old_b = select_bucket(smap, SELEM(old_sdata));
> +		old_b = old_b == b ? NULL : old_b;
> +	}
> +
> +	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&b->lock, b_flags);
> +
> +	if (old_b)
> +		raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&old_b->lock, old_b_flags);

This will deadlock because of the lock ordering of b and old_b. 
Replacing it with res_spin_lock in the later patch can detect it and 
break it more gracefully. imo, we should not introduce a known deadlock 
logic in the kernel code in the syscall code path and ask the current 
user to retry the map_update_elem syscall.

What happened to the patch in the earlier revision that uses the 
local_storage (or owner) for select_bucket?

[ will continue with the rest of the patches a bit later ]

> +
>   	alloc_selem = NULL;
>   	/* First, link the new selem to the map */
> -	bpf_selem_link_map(smap, selem);
> +	bpf_selem_link_map_nolock(smap, selem, b);
>   
>   	/* Second, link (and publish) the new selem to local_storage */
>   	bpf_selem_link_storage_nolock(local_storage, selem);
>   
>   	/* Third, remove old selem, SELEM(old_sdata) */
>   	if (old_sdata) {
> -		bpf_selem_unlink_map(SELEM(old_sdata));
> +		bpf_selem_unlink_map_nolock(SELEM(old_sdata));
>   		bpf_selem_unlink_storage_nolock(local_storage, SELEM(old_sdata),
>   						&old_selem_free_list);
>   	}
>   
> +	if (old_b)
> +		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&old_b->lock, old_b_flags);
> +
> +	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&b->lock, b_flags);
> +
>   unlock:
>   	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&local_storage->lock, flags);
>   	bpf_selem_free_list(&old_selem_free_list, false);
> @@ -679,7 +725,7 @@ void bpf_local_storage_destroy(struct bpf_local_storage *local_storage)
>   		/* Always unlink from map before unlinking from
>   		 * local_storage.
>   		 */
> -		bpf_selem_unlink_map(selem);
> +		WARN_ON(bpf_selem_unlink_map(selem));
>   		/* If local_storage list has only one element, the
>   		 * bpf_selem_unlink_storage_nolock() will return true.
>   		 * Otherwise, it will return false. The current loop iteration