From: bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org
To: arighi@nvidia.com,ast@kernel.org,daniel@iogearbox.net,andrii@kernel.org,eddyz87@gmail.com,memxor@gmail.com
Cc: martin.lau@linux.dev,song@kernel.org,yonghong.song@linux.dev,jolsa@kernel.org,emil@etsalapatis.com,ihor.solodrai@linux.dev,john.fastabend@gmail.com,joshdon@google.com,vineethrp@google.com,balbirs@nvidia.com,skolothumtho@nvidia.com,himadrics@protonmail.com,royfru44@gmail.com,bpf@vger.kernel.org,linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,ast@kernel.org,andrii@kernel.org,daniel@iogearbox.net,martin.lau@kernel.org,eddyz87@gmail.com,yonghong.song@linux.dev,mason@kernel.org,ihor.solodrai@linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] docs/bpf: Document pinned arena file mappings
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2026 23:19:21 +0000 (UTC) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <31db1dd519d2e803caa13210ece9a4c5bbe9e857f7cbe5e8c97152dd72d1c6e7@mail.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261010224902.1232178-4-arighi@nvidia.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4093 bytes --]
> docs/bpf: Document pinned arena file mappings
TL;DR:
- Doc says a canonical arena mapping may start at address zero, but the
verifier may then reject programs using it
- Doc claim about shorter mappings of non-exported arenas looks wrong when
map_extra is nonzero
- Doc mentions an unreachable read-only restriction
> diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/map_arena.rst b/Documentation/bpf/map_arena.rst
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..1b9eadd5fb3a
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/bpf/map_arena.rst
> @@ -0,0 +1,131 @@
[ ... ]
> +* Alternatively, leave ``map_extra`` zero and mmap the map FD first. This
> + mapping establishes the canonical address and must cover the full map
> + capacity. Shorter canonical mappings fail with ``EINVAL``.
> +
> +A canonical map FD mapping may start at address zero if the system's
> +low-address mapping policy permits it.
Can a BPF program use an arena in that state? The BPF_MAP_TYPE_ARENA
handling in kernel/bpf/verifier.c still treats user_vm_start == 0 as unset:
if (!bpf_arena_get_user_vm_start(env->prog->aux->arena)) {
verbose(env, "arena's user address must be set via map_extra or mmap()\n");
return -EINVAL;
}
Consider an arena created with BPF_F_MMAPABLE, BPF_F_ARENA_NO_FREE and
BPF_F_ARENA_EXPORT, with map_extra == 0, followed by:
mmap(0, capacity, ..., MAP_SHARED | MAP_FIXED_NOREPLACE, map_fd, 0)
With mmap_min_addr == 0 this succeeds, since arena_get_unmapped_area() and
arena_map_mmap() in kernel/bpf/arena.c now test user_vm_end for an
established range. That leaves user_vm_start = 0 and user_vm_end = capacity,
and loading any BPF program that references the arena then fails with
-EINVAL.
Should the verifier check use the same "established" test, or should this
paragraph say that such an arena cannot be used by BPF programs?
[ ... ]
> +Once the canonical range is established, it covers the entire capacity
> +reported by ``fstat()``. Consumers can map the full file or smaller slices.
> +Establishing the full canonical mapping reserves virtual address space;
> +it does not populate every arena page. Arenas without
> +``BPF_F_ARENA_EXPORT`` can still establish shorter canonical mappings.
Is that last sentence true for every arena without BPF_F_ARENA_EXPORT?
For a non-exported arena created with a nonzero map_extra,
arena_map_alloc() sets user_vm_end = map_extra + max_entries * PAGE_SIZE at
creation, so the canonical range is already the full capacity.
arena_get_unmapped_area() then takes the "if (arena->user_vm_end)" branch and
rejects any len != user_vm_end - user_vm_start with -EINVAL (-E2BIG if
larger), and arena_map_mmap() returns -EBUSY when user_vm_end !=
vma->vm_end. A shorter map FD mapping of such an arena fails, which also
conflicts with the earlier bullet saying a nonzero map_extra makes the range
cover the full map capacity.
Should the sentence be qualified with "when map_extra is zero"?
[ ... ]
> +Opening the pin uses ordinary filesystem permissions and file LSM checks,
> +as well as ``security_bpf_map()`` for the requested access mode. Mapping it
> +also passes the ordinary mmap LSM checks. Writable mappings remain subject
> +to the BPF map's frozen state and program-read-only restrictions.
Can the "program-read-only restrictions" apply to an arena?
bpf_map_mmap() does reject writable mappings of maps with BPF_F_RDONLY_PROG
(-EACCES), but arena_map_alloc() only accepts BPF_F_SEGV_ON_FAULT,
BPF_F_MMAPABLE, BPF_F_NO_USER_CONV, BPF_F_ARENA_NO_FREE and
BPF_F_ARENA_EXPORT. Creating an arena with BPF_F_RDONLY_PROG fails with
-EINVAL, and nothing sets the flag afterwards.
Only the frozen state (BPF_MAP_FREEZE, -EPERM on a writable mapping) is a
live restriction for exported arena mappings. Should the phrase be dropped,
or reworded to say that only the frozen state applies?
---
AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md
CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/38093513563
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-10 23:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-10 22:45 [PATCH bpf-next 0/5] bpf: Expose pinned arenas as sized bpffs files Andrea Righi
2026-10-10 22:45 ` [PATCH 1/5] bpf: Add an arena flag to retain allocated pages Andrea Righi
2026-10-10 22:45 ` [PATCH 2/5] bpf: Expose pinned arenas as sized bpffs files Andrea Righi
2026-10-10 23:40 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-10-10 22:45 ` [PATCH 3/5] docs/bpf: Document pinned arena file mappings Andrea Righi
2026-10-10 23:19 ` bot+bpf-ci [this message]
2026-10-10 22:45 ` [PATCH 4/5] selftests/bpf: Test " Andrea Righi
2026-10-10 23:40 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-10-10 22:46 ` [PATCH 5/5] selftests/bpf: Test two-way arena access with two guests Andrea Righi
2026-10-10 23:40 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-10-15 17:50 ` [PATCH bpf-next 0/5] bpf: Expose pinned arenas as sized bpffs files Josh Don
2026-10-19 8:17 ` Andrea Righi
2026-10-16 19:03 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-10-16 19:52 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2026-10-18 0:52 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-10-19 8:49 ` Andrea Righi
2026-10-19 16:19 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2026-10-19 16:58 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-10-19 8:44 ` Andrea Righi
2026-10-19 19:32 ` Alexei Starovoitov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=31db1dd519d2e803caa13210ece9a4c5bbe9e857f7cbe5e8c97152dd72d1c6e7@mail.kernel.org \
--to=bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=balbirs@nvidia.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=emil@etsalapatis.com \
--cc=himadrics@protonmail.com \
--cc=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=joshdon@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=mason@kernel.org \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=royfru44@gmail.com \
--cc=skolothumtho@nvidia.com \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=vineethrp@google.com \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®