Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 02/13] bpf: Add helpers to describe the R0:R2 return register pair

On Mon, 2026-08-10 at 17:09 -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:
> LLVM 23 added support for returning a value in two registers for an
> __int128, or a struct/union whose size is greater than 8 but not more than
> 16 bytes: such a value comes back in the R0:R2 register pair, with R2
> holding the upper half. See LLVM patches [1] and [2].
> 
> Later patches teach the JIT, precision backtracking, live register analysis
> and the verifier itself about that convention. All of them need to answer
> the same question: does this subprogram return its value in a register
> pair? Add the shared helpers up front so that those patches can be ordered
> independently of each other:
> 
>  - subprog_ret_type() resolves a subprogram's BTF return type. It is
>    factored out of subprog_returns_void(). The verifier_bug_if(!func) and
>    !func_proto checks it replaces are redundant, since
>    check_btf_func_early() already rejects a func_info record whose type_id
>    is not a BTF_KIND_FUNC pointing at a BTF_KIND_FUNC_PROTO. A check on
>    prog->aux->{btf,func_info} is added instead: unlike
>    subprog_returns_void(), which is only used for global subprograms, later
>    callers ask about static subprograms too, and those may belong to a
>    program loaded without BTF.
> 
>  - ret_regs_cnt() maps the size of a return value to the number of
>    registers holding it.
> 
>  - bpf_ret_reg_pair() answers the question above. Its users query it at
>    every subprogram call and at every subprogram exit, that is once per
>    verifier state rather than once per subprogram, so the answer is
>    precomputed into bpf_subprog_info->ret_reg_pair by
>    bpf_compute_subprog_ret_regs() and the helper itself is a flag test.
>    It lives in bpf_verifier.h because kernel/bpf/backtrack.c and
>    kernel/bpf/liveness.c need it as well.
> 
> bpf_compute_subprog_ret_regs() runs in bpf_check() right before
> bpf_compute_live_registers(), which is the first of those users: by then
> BTF func_info has been validated and the subprogram list is final.
> 
> No functional change, bpf_ret_reg_pair() has no callers yet.
> 
>   [1] https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/190894
>   [2] https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/206876
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
> ---

I still think that bpf_compute_live_registers() can be used to compute
this information w/o the need to resort to BTF.

...

> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index 40150390dd50..58a177d26c46 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -382,27 +382,57 @@ bool bpf_subprog_is_global(const struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int subprog)
>  	return aux && aux[subprog].linkage == BTF_FUNC_GLOBAL;
>  }
>  
> -static bool subprog_returns_void(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int subprog)
> +/* Return type of a subprogram, NULL if it cannot be resolved */
> +static const struct btf_type *subprog_ret_type(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int subprog)
>  {
> -	const struct btf_type *type, *func, *func_proto;
> +	const struct btf_type *func, *func_proto;
>  	const struct btf *btf = env->prog->aux->btf;
>  	u32 btf_id;
>  
> +	if (!btf || !env->prog->aux->func_info)
> +		return NULL;
> +
>  	btf_id = env->prog->aux->func_info[subprog].type_id;
>  
> +	/* Both already validated by prepare_btf_func() at prog load. */
>  	func = btf_type_by_id(btf, btf_id);
> -	if (verifier_bug_if(!func, env, "btf_id %u not found", btf_id))
> -		return false;
> -
>  	func_proto = btf_type_by_id(btf, func->type);
> -	if (!func_proto)
> -		return false;
>  
> -	type = btf_type_skip_modifiers(btf, func_proto->type, NULL);
> -	if (!type)
> -		return false;
> +	return btf_type_skip_modifiers(btf, func_proto->type, NULL);
> +}
> +
> +static bool subprog_returns_void(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int subprog)
> +{
> +	const struct btf_type *type = subprog_ret_type(env, subprog);
>  
> -	return btf_type_is_void(type);
> +	return type && btf_type_is_void(type);
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Number of registers holding a function return value: a value of up to 8
> + * bytes is returned in R0, a value of more than 8 bytes and no more than 16
> + * bytes (an __int128 or a struct/union of such size) is returned in the R0:R2
> + * register pair, with R2 holding the upper half.
> + */
> +static u32 ret_regs_cnt(u32 size)
> +{
> +	return size > 8 && size <= 16 ? 2 : 1;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Resolve the return convention of every subprogram once, so that
> + * bpf_ret_reg_pair() is a plain flag test on the hot paths that use it.
> + */
> +static void bpf_compute_subprog_ret_regs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> +{
> +	const struct btf_type *type;
> +	int subprog;
> +
> +	for (subprog = 0; subprog < env->subprog_cnt; subprog++) {
> +		type = subprog_ret_type(env, subprog);
> +		if (type && (btf_type_is_struct(type) || btf_type_is_scalar(type)))
> +			subprog_info(env, subprog)->ret_reg_pair = ret_regs_cnt(type->size) > 1;

Nit: there is a btf.c:btf_resolve_size() api function, it would be
     better to use it instead of calculating the size ad-hoc.

Should the jit_required flag be set here instead of the main
verification pass?

> +	}
>  }
>  
>  static const char *subprog_name(const struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int subprog)

...