From: bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org
To: leon.hwang@linux.dev,bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: ast@kernel.org,daniel@iogearbox.net,andrii@kernel.org,martin.lau@linux.dev,eddyz87@gmail.com,song@kernel.org,yonghong.song@linux.dev,john.fastabend@gmail.com,kpsingh@kernel.org,sdf@fomichev.me,haoluo@google.com,jolsa@kernel.org,shuah@kernel.org,yangfeng@kylinos.cn,leon.hwang@linux.dev,menglong8.dong@gmail.com,puranjay@kernel.org,bjorn@kernel.org,pulehui@huawei.com,linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,netdev@vger.kernel.org,kernel-patches-bot@fb.com,ast@kernel.org,andrii@kernel.org,daniel@iogearbox.net,martin.lau@kernel.org,eddyz87@gmail.com,yonghong.song@linux.dev,clm@meta.com,ihor.solodrai@linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 3/6] bpf: Disallow !kprobe_write_ctx progs tail-calling kprobe_write_ctx progs
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2026 16:01:47 +0000 (UTC) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <47fbcb9aa941b07054bfef30b802d488688fafdf6df889e78b38313a614b98c1@mail.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260303150639.85007-4-leon.hwang@linux.dev>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1210 bytes --]
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
[ ... ]
> + switch (match) {
> + case BPF_MAP_OWNER_MATCH_FOR_INIT:
> + if (owner->kprobe_write_ctx != aux->kprobe_write_ctx)
> + return false;
> + break;
> +
> + case BPF_MAP_OWNER_MATCH_FOR_UPDATE:
> + if (!owner->kprobe_write_ctx && aux->kprobe_write_ctx)
> + return false;
> + break;
> + }
In the v1 review, Alexei Starovoitov asked for strict conformance
both ways rather than one-directional validation:
"Don't be fancy. Require strict conformance both ways
in *all* patches."
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAADnVQ+-V0-1i8_+CYpK7G0CnV-2n8e9Szv43yM3Az197eL_0A@mail.gmail.com/
The BPF_MAP_OWNER_MATCH_FOR_UPDATE case still uses one-directional
matching, rejecting only !owner->kprobe_write_ctx && aux->kprobe_write_ctx
but allowing the reverse. Was this an intentional design choice, and
if so, should the changelog note the disagreement?
---
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/22630000544
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-03 16:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-03 15:06 [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/6] bpf: Enhance __bpf_prog_map_compatible() Leon Hwang
2026-03-03 15:06 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/6] bpf: Add fsession to verbose log in check_get_func_ip() Leon Hwang
2026-03-03 15:06 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/6] bpf: Factor out bpf_map_owner_[init,matches]() helpers Leon Hwang
2026-03-03 15:06 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 3/6] bpf: Disallow !kprobe_write_ctx progs tail-calling kprobe_write_ctx progs Leon Hwang
2026-03-03 16:01 ` bot+bpf-ci [this message]
2026-03-10 17:23 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-03-11 6:08 ` Leon Hwang
2026-03-11 9:21 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-03-11 15:44 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-03-11 16:00 ` Leon Hwang
2026-03-11 22:45 ` Jiri Olsa
2026-03-12 2:24 ` Leon Hwang
2026-03-12 10:46 ` Jiri Olsa
2026-03-12 13:39 ` Leon Hwang
2026-03-03 15:06 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 4/6] bpf: Disallow !call_get_func_ip progs tail-calling call_get_func_ip progs Leon Hwang
2026-03-03 15:06 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 5/6] bpf: Disallow !call_session_cookie progs tail-calling call_session_cookie progs Leon Hwang
2026-03-03 15:06 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 6/6] selftests/bpf: Add tests to verify prog_array map compatibility Leon Hwang
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=47fbcb9aa941b07054bfef30b802d488688fafdf6df889e78b38313a614b98c1@mail.kernel.org \
--to=bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bjorn@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=clm@meta.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=haoluo@google.com \
--cc=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-patches-bot@fb.com \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=leon.hwang@linux.dev \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=menglong8.dong@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pulehui@huawei.com \
--cc=puranjay@kernel.org \
--cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=yangfeng@kylinos.cn \
--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®