On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 10:44:18PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 1:48 PM Andrii Nakryiko > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2026 at 11:59 PM Jiri Olsa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 10:58:27PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > > > hi, > > > > Andrii reported an issue with optimized uprobes [1] that can clobber > > > > redzone area with call instruction storing return address on stack > > > > where user code may keep temporary data without adjusting rsp. > > > > > > > > Fixing this by moving the optimized uprobes on top of 10-bytes nop > > > > instruction, so we can squeeze another instruction to escape the > > > > redzone area before doing the call. > > > > > > > > Note we need upstream update first for patch 3 (github.com/libbpf/usdt), > > > > if we decide to take this change. > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > jirka > > > > > > > > > > > > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/ > > > > v2: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/ > > > > v3: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/ > > > > > > > > v4 changes: > > > > - do not use 2nd int3 (ont +5 offset) because the call instruction > > > > is allways the same for the given nop10 address [Andrii/Peter] > > > > - unmap unused trampoline vma after unsuccesfull optimization [sashiko] > > > > - small change to patch#2 moved user_64bit_mode earlier in the path > > > > and pass/use mm_struct pointer directly from arch_uprobe_optimize > > > > instead of gettting current->mm > > > > Andrii, keeping your ack, please shout otherwise > > > > > > hi, > > > I think bots did not find anything substantial, I have just small > > > selftests changes queued for v5 > > > > > > any other feedback/review would be great > > > > > > > one small nit on only, otherwise LGTM. > > > > Peter, Masami, Ingo, should this go through tip tree or should we > > route this through bpf-next tree? I think we are fine either way, but > > might be more convenient to route through bpf-next given libbpf and > > BPF selftest changes. > > > > I'll assume that no one has any objections to route this through > bpf-next. We got reviews from Oleg, so that's great. Jiri, seems like > you will do small adjustments and send v5, please do, and then unless > meanwhile no one raises any issues, this will go through bpf-next. > Thanks!
Is it already applied? If not, I can stick it in tip/perf/core (and the first in /urgent).
