From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from m16.mail.163.com (m16.mail.163.com [220.197.31.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E47E7322A; Fri, 10 Apr 2026 07:41:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=220.197.31.2 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775806886; cv=none; b=FXrupVbtTIo/qMIEsxMAzwjrSntxBPPenv2zy5IzYYEN+n667mUne9volk1DzMP2QRImd5XEQ5aHQ0tslcfySL7Lk8CTMFHySOMKV/Sv2YaVg6ozOzoh7U0LyZGaJTLbbujDYecDu/ILrljPnWz9rxF5TLwrUb+xLaICdlErF2Y= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775806886; c=relaxed/simple; bh=jhgLEVPKu+458UiJOdN9DpJeh5xnKaDxNtaN3F3LQYU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=WgvKxM993KUKLcRo0po1Rbqr0L5PUNMWx9HfdBZu1awEJN64+h7bOvYubdkh69VxPmXPo28sr+zacVzKmH5PmJbQKX9SUea8imV3/v17FioemwRmKKzautknK6kqg9Fc8J9HiMleI13GoAoVTxw4espz6dJEy2fNXJ9VJeCr9Tk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=163.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=163.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=163.com header.i=@163.com header.b=oRrAoSIp; arc=none smtp.client-ip=220.197.31.2 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=163.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=163.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=163.com header.i=@163.com header.b="oRrAoSIp" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=163.com; s=s110527; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-Id:MIME-Version; bh=WD P5j7UlGQOUgIzGp4zWxgoNc4rx7K8AHQxA7ZZ8aMo=; b=oRrAoSIpbzlLJUIq0u 5JdsZgY36PUUPLM2LDvSr3M+pOywVUOEBW+ZayR0AaRkcVWe3Md2viX/xIYof5ks Qf2ZHMlFBpvXDJ4cd9GYKPxVOnwyiPtAfqLSZfhEgCGQMMko7gExiVvJyTw7b7VS liP9FIHq7XOMhj4R2W8FtRNFc= Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown []) by gzga-smtp-mtada-g0-3 (Coremail) with SMTP id _____wBHG853qdhpUZZMEQ--.33211S2; Fri, 10 Apr 2026 15:40:41 +0800 (CST) From: Feng Yang To: leon.hwang@linux.dev Cc: andrii@kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, eddyz87@gmail.com, jiayuan.chen@linux.dev, john.fastabend@gmail.com, jolsa@kernel.org, kpsingh@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev, mattbobrowski@google.com, memxor@gmail.com, song@kernel.org, yangfeng59949@163.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Fix Null-Pointer Dereference in kernel_clone() via BPF fmod_ret on security_task_alloc Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2026 15:40:39 +0800 Message-Id: <20260410074039.187816-1-yangfeng59949@163.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.25.1 In-Reply-To: <4e8460e6-94f6-4741-8f6c-4526684e3e72@linux.dev> References: <4e8460e6-94f6-4741-8f6c-4526684e3e72@linux.dev> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-CM-TRANSID:_____wBHG853qdhpUZZMEQ--.33211S2 X-Coremail-Antispam: 1Uf129KBjvdXoWruFW5Zr4fGrW8WrWUAr47Jwb_yoWkKwc_ur sYqwn7CryDZFn8Z3Z8A34xXwsrGr45GF1kXrykZ3W7JasIgay0qF48XrnYvrWrXr1IyFs3 ur45Wa43Grn29jkaLaAFLSUrUUUUjb8apTn2vfkv8UJUUUU8Yxn0WfASr-VFAUDa7-sFnT 9fnUUvcSsGvfC2KfnxnUUI43ZEXa7VUUdHU3UUUUU== X-CM-SenderInfo: p1dqww5hqjkmqzuzqiywtou0bp/xtbC8RkZkWnYqXkv3wAA3x On Fri, 10 Apr 2026 15:21:26 +0800 Leon Hwang wrote: > On 10/4/26 14:10, Feng Yang wrote: > > From: Feng Yang > > > > [...] > > > + > > +static int check_attach_sleepable(u32 btf_id, unsigned long addr, const char *func_name) > > +{ > > + /* fentry/fexit/fmod_ret progs can be sleepable if they are > > + * attached to ALLOW_ERROR_INJECTION and are not in denylist. > > + */ > > + if (!check_non_sleepable_error_inject(btf_id) && > > + within_error_injection_list(addr)) > > + return 0; > > + > > + return -EINVAL; > > +} > > + > > +static int check_attach_modify_return(unsigned long addr, const char *func_name) > > +{ > > + if (within_error_injection_list(addr) || > > + !strncmp(SECURITY_PREFIX, func_name, sizeof(SECURITY_PREFIX) - 1)) > > + return 0; > > + > > + return -EINVAL; > > +} > > Why did you move them here? Seems that you didn't use them. Because CONFIG_FUNCTION_ERROR_INJECTION is directly reused here, and the function has_arch_syscall_prefix is intended to be used. > > + > > +static int modify_return_get_retval_range(const struct bpf_prog *prog, > > + struct bpf_retval_range *retval_range) > > NIT: code format issue here. Thanks. > Thanks, > Leon > > > +{ > [...]