With CONFIG_CFI_CLANG enabled, the kernel strictly enforces that
indirect function calls use a function pointer type that matches the
target function. I ran into the following type mismatch when running
BPF self-tests:

  CFI failure at bpf_obj_free_fields+0x190/0x238 (target:
    bpf_crypto_ctx_release+0x0/0x94; expected type: 0xa488ebfc)
  Internal error: Oops - CFI: 00000000f2008228 [#1]  SMP
  ...

As bpf_crypto_ctx_release() is also used in BPF programs and using
a void pointer as the argument would make the verifier unhappy, add
a simple stub function with the correct type and register it as the
destructor kfunc instead.

Signed-off-by: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>
---
 kernel/bpf/crypto.c | 9 ++++++++-
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/crypto.c b/kernel/bpf/crypto.c
index 94854cd9c4cc..f44aa454826b 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/crypto.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/crypto.c
@@ -261,6 +261,13 @@ __bpf_kfunc void bpf_crypto_ctx_release(struct bpf_crypto_ctx *ctx)
 		call_rcu(&ctx->rcu, crypto_free_cb);
 }
 
+__used __retain void __bpf_crypto_ctx_release(void *ctx)
+{
+	bpf_crypto_ctx_release(ctx);
+}
+
+CFI_NOSEAL(__bpf_crypto_ctx_release);
+
 static int bpf_crypto_crypt(const struct bpf_crypto_ctx *ctx,
 			    const struct bpf_dynptr_kern *src,
 			    const struct bpf_dynptr_kern *dst,
@@ -368,7 +375,7 @@ static const struct btf_kfunc_id_set crypt_kfunc_set = {
 
 BTF_ID_LIST(bpf_crypto_dtor_ids)
 BTF_ID(struct, bpf_crypto_ctx)
-BTF_ID(func, bpf_crypto_ctx_release)
+BTF_ID(func, __bpf_crypto_ctx_release)
 
 static int __init crypto_kfunc_init(void)
 {
-- 
2.50.1.470.g6ba607880d-goog

On 7/25/25 2:44 PM, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> With CONFIG_CFI_CLANG enabled, the kernel strictly enforces that
> indirect function calls use a function pointer type that matches the
> target function. I ran into the following type mismatch when running
> BPF self-tests:
>
>    CFI failure at bpf_obj_free_fields+0x190/0x238 (target:
>      bpf_crypto_ctx_release+0x0/0x94; expected type: 0xa488ebfc)
>    Internal error: Oops - CFI: 00000000f2008228 [#1]  SMP
>    ...
>
> As bpf_crypto_ctx_release() is also used in BPF programs and using
> a void pointer as the argument would make the verifier unhappy, add
> a simple stub function with the correct type and register it as the
> destructor kfunc instead.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>
> ---
>   kernel/bpf/crypto.c | 9 ++++++++-
>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/crypto.c b/kernel/bpf/crypto.c
> index 94854cd9c4cc..f44aa454826b 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/crypto.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/crypto.c
> @@ -261,6 +261,13 @@ __bpf_kfunc void bpf_crypto_ctx_release(struct bpf_crypto_ctx *ctx)
>   		call_rcu(&ctx->rcu, crypto_free_cb);
>   }
>   
> +__used __retain void __bpf_crypto_ctx_release(void *ctx)
> +{
> +	bpf_crypto_ctx_release(ctx);
> +}
> +
> +CFI_NOSEAL(__bpf_crypto_ctx_release);

Okay, looks like Peter has made similar changes before.
See https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231215092707.799451071@infradead.org/

To be consistent with existing code base, I think the following
change is better:

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/crypto.c b/kernel/bpf/crypto.c
index 94854cd9c4cc..a267d9087d40 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/crypto.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/crypto.c
@@ -261,6 +261,12 @@ __bpf_kfunc void bpf_crypto_ctx_release(struct bpf_crypto_ctx *ctx)
                 call_rcu(&ctx->rcu, crypto_free_cb);
  }
  
+__bpf_kfunc void bpf_crypto_ctx_release_dtor(void *ctx)
+{
+       bpf_crypto_ctx_release(ctx);
+}
+CFI_NOSEAL(bpf_crypto_ctx_release_dtor);
+
  static int bpf_crypto_crypt(const struct bpf_crypto_ctx *ctx,
                             const struct bpf_dynptr_kern *src,
                             const struct bpf_dynptr_kern *dst,
@@ -368,7 +374,7 @@ static const struct btf_kfunc_id_set crypt_kfunc_set = {
  
  BTF_ID_LIST(bpf_crypto_dtor_ids)
  BTF_ID(struct, bpf_crypto_ctx)
-BTF_ID(func, bpf_crypto_ctx_release)
+BTF_ID(func, bpf_crypto_ctx_release_dtor)
  
  static int __init crypto_kfunc_init(void)
  {

The same code pattern can be done for patch 2 and patch 3.

> +
>   static int bpf_crypto_crypt(const struct bpf_crypto_ctx *ctx,
>   			    const struct bpf_dynptr_kern *src,
>   			    const struct bpf_dynptr_kern *dst,
> @@ -368,7 +375,7 @@ static const struct btf_kfunc_id_set crypt_kfunc_set = {
>   
>   BTF_ID_LIST(bpf_crypto_dtor_ids)
>   BTF_ID(struct, bpf_crypto_ctx)
> -BTF_ID(func, bpf_crypto_ctx_release)
> +BTF_ID(func, __bpf_crypto_ctx_release)
>   
>   static int __init crypto_kfunc_init(void)
>   {

On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 04:11:27PM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:
> 
> Okay, looks like Peter has made similar changes before.
> See https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231215092707.799451071@infradead.org/
> 
> To be consistent with existing code base, I think the following
> change is better:
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/crypto.c b/kernel/bpf/crypto.c
> index 94854cd9c4cc..a267d9087d40 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/crypto.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/crypto.c
> @@ -261,6 +261,12 @@ __bpf_kfunc void bpf_crypto_ctx_release(struct bpf_crypto_ctx *ctx)
>                 call_rcu(&ctx->rcu, crypto_free_cb);
>  }
> +__bpf_kfunc void bpf_crypto_ctx_release_dtor(void *ctx)
> +{
> +       bpf_crypto_ctx_release(ctx);
> +}
> +CFI_NOSEAL(bpf_crypto_ctx_release_dtor);
> +
>  static int bpf_crypto_crypt(const struct bpf_crypto_ctx *ctx,
>                             const struct bpf_dynptr_kern *src,
>                             const struct bpf_dynptr_kern *dst,
> @@ -368,7 +374,7 @@ static const struct btf_kfunc_id_set crypt_kfunc_set = {
>  BTF_ID_LIST(bpf_crypto_dtor_ids)
>  BTF_ID(struct, bpf_crypto_ctx)
> -BTF_ID(func, bpf_crypto_ctx_release)
> +BTF_ID(func, bpf_crypto_ctx_release_dtor)
>  static int __init crypto_kfunc_init(void)
>  {
> 
> The same code pattern can be done for patch 2 and patch 3.

Sure, I'll update the patches and send v3.

Sami