From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mta1.migadu.com (out-63.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.63]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6DBC47D93E for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2026 09:23:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.63 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790328222; cv=none; b=nuErh1hsh9t1Y3rAKJIWLxtiWMA658nimcA/XJYaWjzMf5HesUk4WOG5Jr56HwsOjxOxDZBf/w3Eqy6likGIxGrcJ295qmuwAsNkhaTo/xbNGyliRzoCKR/GViEE4VjyCOu8TOAZBQczarySVrMW2GhTGEXvLhbqpwIJ+trFu9Q= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790328222; c=relaxed/simple; bh=JHT13dmPp/AIubZlwWDeP8eBDCBjcOjq9l+NPlQtCZw=; h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:Cc:Subject:From:To: References:In-Reply-To; b=JQLzlEb7WI7K58Q0eaAv04+Kk/KacesK6X3mBSRvDlcKNqDXL+RC73KrgTSX8lpqXGqsa0iaDN3EvglKE7yg4aTfru5iN1eZtGboiPpJiHg/HWrPhOb/9gN7pYeFliLIHnqwJM35sUljcECUppz6+cl8bYpFDlkpUaq8+075FE8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=s3qQlToD; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.63 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="s3qQlToD" X-Envelope-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; bh=JHT13dmPp/AIubZlwWDeP8eBDCBjcOjq9l+NPlQtCZw=; c=simple/simple; d=linux.dev; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; s=key1; t=1790328216; v=1; x=1790933016; b=s3qQlToD/ByH68rKOY5ITX5w5SkBxDp7Qi1zEC1ue8Ld3Sv8oXRjahmrCUE38waE4wHLVRb4 B9AjKpfpvj1wquCQ5Ra5/N6Sy1mIgvVIfYI7fdK5TehgRxJ8Fc00QWfULhn4PBgEzQYrUKoRDfZ TTD06PKPSpBJYervGtCdgNTY= X-Envelope-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Received: by smtp.migadu.com with ESMTPS id 3bb441a73f66d55f; Fri, 25 Sep 2026 09:23:36 +0000 X-Mizu-Trace-ID: 3bb441a73f66d55f X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2026 09:23:31 +0000 Message-Id: Cc: "Martin KaFai Lau" , "Eduard Zingerman" , "Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi" , "Song Liu" , "Yonghong Song" , "Jiri Olsa" , "KP Singh" , "John Fastabend" , "Leon Hwang" , "Junseo Lim" , "Sechang Lim" , "Puranjay Mohan" , "Xu Kuohai" , "Ilya Leoshkevich" , "Hari Bathini" , "Christophe Leroy" , "Naveen N Rao" , =?utf-8?q?Bj=C3=B6rn_T=C3=B6pel?= , "Pu Lehui" , "Tiezhu Yang" , "Hengqi Chen" , Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf v3 2/3] bpf: Skip the progs of trampoline images that are being freed From: "Florent Revest" To: "Alexei Starovoitov" , , "Alexei Starovoitov" , "Daniel Borkmann" , "Andrii Nakryiko" X-Mailer: aerc 0.17.0 References: <20260924170543.1017048-1-florent.revest@linux.dev> <20260924170543.1017048-3-florent.revest@linux.dev> In-Reply-To: On Fri Sep 25, 2026 at 12:35 AM UTC, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Thu Sep 24, 2026 at 5:05 PM UTC, Florent Revest (Anthropic) wrote: > > call sequences, which replaces ip_after_call. Tasks that are still in a= n > > image that was put skip all of its progs from then on, including the > > ones that are still attached, like they already skipped its fexit > > progs. The call to the original function is left alone, a task that is > > before it in the image still has to run it. > > So I slept on it and you were right to argue that skipping fmod_ret > is a bad idea. bpf-ci explains it well. > > So let's patch only the progs that are being detached instead of all. > Pretty much what you had in v2, but also explain why list is needed > and why just patching previous tramp is not enough. Ack, I will respin in v4 with a better explanation than I had in v2. > Also see CI re: lower limit for x86. Yes, I could reproduce it. I'll lower the limit to 36 on x86. > Adjusting BPF_MAX_TRAMP_LINKS for large page sizes is a bigger change. > Ignore it for now. Alright!