From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 1E29A30F950; Wed, 7 Jan 2026 12:44:16 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767789856; cv=none; b=kKPrJVlLO7UU+4G4geTWZrAWjBn4BMSybTzeembzWFrAOGNAsBYZYAxgx3OP3tZATVuySzik4Uuf3F9lhal1JVB1nZb89eAKbWH/b9uIpFWvU3IiMYaPadTxHfHaOqNggmWoN06iaFcsvTtNJ7XJtj/8DJDcyHeE7TG5xD+gA1A= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767789856; c=relaxed/simple; bh=iXJgNcThmxkm3TnRQjzZQuN8UzVODisYYjfRJTHl0yw=; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References: Subject:From:To:Cc:Date; b=DU3R1Mv8QPXH6ssJemKWLvTrUrLpCHE7ABpHVZlWkRnc4+vIgcJYN8evfHC5l4lNsG9xHjsZeNsoc9puCpCfbST0CfeyWj90WIzjcMfD3hjOoIc8id0ph2H1JPdAdmtEBGyWqyjYYcBptLPVPDcc+eflOiYqBQMXfZ7dUxWe80g= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=goCb03/1; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="goCb03/1" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 57878C4CEF7; Wed, 7 Jan 2026 12:44:15 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1767789856; bh=iXJgNcThmxkm3TnRQjzZQuN8UzVODisYYjfRJTHl0yw=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:From; b=goCb03/1Z1anQzE+U+wmwe4H6zr/zAZx923KbzvF85OpQwCerss7oIwJOa4aV68Tu wGabvxRnnBsb29JWa9tB1K82Rlvhd5yTjVYNxX3yG7QomgD2tNx2hGy+ZgBNTq2IgA lNRbl6fKYnOj9HOPFKQefmRxyLoEDNdRZDG+V65Mujz29Koj5XX3x0tCzZwe3CoIHn dhZ7bnd+Uk1QZokvoHOx+Aq7E7mMVpAJ3sYtcuFhKJGP1fBH6YfmP2OvmGG91DXVmR tZrjBQ6r+DCivv6p6HRoZ/ZN85MoJ8azsL1dOitqf8JwBG2TbAWY34fESr2E7Fe9x+ GW+YSD9ERLKmQ== Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5691045705513337693==" Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <5be9eb70fb41e7278771d9ff1fe3493444a7c33d28f300f04fb8e3be73005ec4@mail.kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <20260107-helper_proto-v1-2-e387e08271cc@gmail.com> References: <20260107-helper_proto-v1-2-e387e08271cc@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf 2/2] bpf: Require ARG_PTR_TO_MEM with memory flag From: bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org To: ftyghome@gmail.com,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,mattbobrowski@google.com,rostedt@goodmis.org,mhiramat@kernel.org,mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,davem@davemloft.net,edumazet@google.com,kuba@kernel.org,pabeni@redhat.com,horms@kernel.org,dxu@dxuuu.xyz Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org,linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org,netdev@vger.kernel.org,electronlsr@gmail.com,gplhust955@gmail.com,haoran.ni.cs@gmail.com,ftyghome@gmail.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 Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2026 12:44:15 +0000 (UTC) --===============5691045705513337693== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > index f0ca69f888fa..c7ebddb66385 100644 > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > @@ -10349,10 +10349,27 @@ static bool check_btf_id_ok(const struct bpf_func_proto *fn) > return true; > } > > +static bool check_mem_arg_rw_flag_ok(const struct bpf_func_proto *fn) > +{ > + int i; > + > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(fn->arg_type); i++) { > + enum bpf_arg_type arg_type = fn->arg_type[i]; > + > + if (base_type(arg_type) != ARG_PTR_TO_MEM) > + continue; > + if (!(arg_type & (MEM_WRITE | MEM_RDONLY))) > + return false; Does this check also apply to ARG_PTR_TO_FIXED_SIZE_MEM? Looking at the definition in include/linux/bpf.h: ARG_PTR_TO_FIXED_SIZE_MEM = MEM_FIXED_SIZE | ARG_PTR_TO_MEM, Since base_type() masks off the flags, base_type(ARG_PTR_TO_FIXED_SIZE_MEM) returns ARG_PTR_TO_MEM. But ARG_PTR_TO_FIXED_SIZE_MEM does not include MEM_WRITE or MEM_RDONLY in its definition. Several helpers in net/core/filter.c use ARG_PTR_TO_FIXED_SIZE_MEM without additional flags: bpf_tcp_raw_gen_syncookie_ipv4_proto: .arg1_type = ARG_PTR_TO_FIXED_SIZE_MEM, bpf_tcp_raw_gen_syncookie_ipv6_proto: .arg1_type = ARG_PTR_TO_FIXED_SIZE_MEM, bpf_tcp_raw_check_syncookie_ipv4_proto: .arg1_type = ARG_PTR_TO_FIXED_SIZE_MEM, .arg2_type = ARG_PTR_TO_FIXED_SIZE_MEM, bpf_tcp_raw_check_syncookie_ipv6_proto: .arg1_type = ARG_PTR_TO_FIXED_SIZE_MEM, .arg2_type = ARG_PTR_TO_FIXED_SIZE_MEM, Would these helpers fail check_func_proto() after this change, causing BPF programs using them to fail verification? Should these prototypes be updated to include MEM_RDONLY (since they read from the memory), or should the check skip ARG_PTR_TO_FIXED_SIZE_MEM? > + } > + > + return true; > +} [ ... ] --- 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/20781625347 --===============5691045705513337693==--