On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 7:41 AM Leon Hwang <[email protected]> wrote: > > uprobe programs that can modify pt_regs require different runtime > assumptions than pt_regs-read-only uprobe programs. Mixing both in > one prog_array can make owner expectations diverge from callee behavior. > > Reject the combination of !kprobe_write_ctx progs with kprobe_write_ctx > progs in __bpf_prog_map_compatible() to address the issue. > > Fixes: 7384893d970e ("bpf: Allow uprobe program to change context registers") > Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <[email protected]> > --- > include/linux/bpf.h | 7 ++++--- > kernel/bpf/core.c | 3 +++ > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h > index b78b53198a2e..2a2f6448a5fb 100644 > --- a/include/linux/bpf.h > +++ b/include/linux/bpf.h > @@ -285,9 +285,10 @@ struct bpf_list_node_kern { > */ > struct bpf_map_owner { > enum bpf_prog_type type; > - bool jited; > - bool xdp_has_frags; > - bool sleepable; > + u32 jited:1, > + xdp_has_frags:1, > + sleepable:1, > + kprobe_write_ctx:1;
Don't you see how much churn you're adding this way? Every patch has to touch two lines instead of one. Use u32 jited:1; u32 xdp_has_frags:1; also the bot is correct on patch 2 and 3. Don't be fancy. Require strict conformance both ways in *all* patches. And your codex selftests are garbage. I don't have other words to describe it. They are not testing the actual bug that your patches are fixing. Think of what you're doing. Asking LLM to write a test for your other patch is not what you should be asking it to do. The selftest should be such that it proves the unsafety/crash before the fix. pw-bot: cr
