On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 9:16 AM Jiawei Zhao wrote:
>
> From: Jiawei Zhao
>
> On x86-64, USDT arguments can be specified using Scale-Index-Base (SIB)
> addressing, e.g. "1@-96(%rbp,%rax,8)". The current USDT implementation
> in libbpf cannot parse this format, causing `bpf_program__attach_usdt()`
>
On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 6:56 AM Matt Fleming wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 3:35 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> wrote:
> >
> > Please make a full description of what the test does,
> > since it's not trivial to decipher from the code.
> > If I'm reading it
On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 9:02 AM Matt Fleming wrote:
>
> From: Matt Fleming
>
> Add benchmarks for the standard set of operations: lookup, update,
> delete. Also, include a benchmark for trie_free() which is known to have
> terrible performance for maps with many entries.
>
> Benchmarks operate on
On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 8:15 AM Lorenz Bauer wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 3:49 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> wrote:
>
> > __pa_symbol() should work for start_BTF, but would be good
> > to double check with Ard that the rest stays linear.
>
> Alexei,
>
> This
On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 6:18 AM Lorenz Bauer wrote:
>
> Hi Breno,
>
> Thanks for reaching out.
>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 1:39 PM Breno Leitao wrote:
>
> > Should __pa_symbol() be used instead of virt_to_phys()?
>
> I'm not really well versed with mm in general. Looking around a bit I
> found so
On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 5:04 AM KaFai Wan wrote:
>
> The reuslt:
>
> $ tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs --name=tracing_deny
> #467/1 tracing_deny/migrate_disable:OK
> #467 tracing_deny:OK
> Summary: 1/1 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
>
> Signed-off-by: KaFai Wan
> ---
> .../self
On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 7:31 AM Will Deacon wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 04:02:25PM +0200, Alexis Lothoré wrote:
> > On Tue Jul 15, 2025 at 3:32 PM CEST, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 09, 2025 at 10:36:55AM +0200, Alexis Lothoré (eBPF
> > > Foundation) wrote:
> > >> While introducing
On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 9:27 AM KaFai Wan wrote:
>
> Show the precise rejected function name when attaching tracing to
> __btf_id functions.
>
> $ ./fentry
> libbpf: prog 'migrate_disable': BPF program load failed: -EINVAL
> libbpf: prog 'migrate_disable': -- BEGIN PROG LOAD LOG --
> Attaching tra
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 3:45 PM Eduard Zingerman wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2025-06-23 at 00:03 -0400, Harishankar Vishwanathan wrote:
> > The previous commit improves the precision in scalar(32)_min_max_add,
> > and scalar(32)_min_max_sub. The improvement in precision occurs in cases
> > when all outcome
On Sun, Jun 15, 2025 at 7:00 AM Alexis Lothoré
wrote:
>
> On Sat Jun 14, 2025 at 12:35 AM CEST, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 1:59 AM Alexis Lothoré
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri Jun 13, 2025 at 10:32 AM CEST, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 1:59 AM Alexis Lothoré
wrote:
>
> On Fri Jun 13, 2025 at 10:32 AM CEST, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 10:26:37AM +0200, Alexis Lothoré wrote:
> >> Hi Peter,
> >>
> >> On Fri Jun 13, 2025 at 10:11 AM CEST, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025
On Sun, Jun 8, 2025 at 7:38 AM wangfushuai wrote:
>
> When xsend() returns -1 (error), the check 'n < sizeof(buf)' incorrectly
> treats it as success due to unsigned promotion. Explicitly check for -1
> first.
>
> Fixes: a4b7193d8efd ("selftests/bpf: Add sockmap test for redirecting partial
> skb
On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 2:32 PM Luis Gerhorst wrote:
>
> ALU sanitization was introduced to ensure that a subsequent ptr access
> can never go OOB, even under speculation. This is required because we
> currently allow speculative scalar confusion. Spec. scalar confusion is
> possible because Spectr
On Mon, Jun 2, 2025 at 10:28 PM Suchit Karunakaran
wrote:
>
> From: Suchit
>
> Add validation step to ensure that the UDP payload is
> long enough to contain the expected GUE and UNIGUE encapsulation
> headers
>
> Signed-off-by: Suchit
> ---
>
> Changes since v2:
> - Rebase
>
> tools/testing/se
On Fri, Jun 6, 2025 at 12:45 AM Alexis Lothoré
wrote:
>
> Hi Alexei,
>
> On Thu Jun 5, 2025 at 6:09 PM CEST, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 12:35 AM Alexis Lothoré
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Ihor,
> >>
> >> On Wed Jun
On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 12:35 AM Alexis Lothoré
wrote:
>
> Hi Ihor,
>
> On Wed Jun 4, 2025 at 7:31 PM CEST, Ihor Solodrai wrote:
> > On 6/4/25 2:02 AM, Alexis Lothoré wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> Could I be missing something obvious ? Or did I misunderstand the actual
> >> attribute encoding feature ?
On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 10:33 AM T.J. Mercier wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 2:12 AM Saket Kumar Bhaskar
> wrote:
> >
> > On linux-next, build for bpf selftest displays an error due to
> > mismatch in the expected function signature of bpf_testmod_test_read
> > and bpf_testmod_test_write.
> >
On Mon, Jun 2, 2025 at 8:05 AM Ian Rogers wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 11:20 AM Alexei Starovoitov
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 12:20 AM Blake Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > The BTF dumper code currently displays arrays of characters as just t
On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 12:20 AM Blake Jones wrote:
>
> The BTF dumper code currently displays arrays of characters as just that -
> arrays, with each character formatted individually. Sometimes this is what
> makes sense, but it's nice to be able to treat that array as a string.
>
> This change a
On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 9:17 AM Jiayuan Chen wrote:
>
> A previous commit expanded the usage scope of bpf_get_cgroup_classid() to
> all contexts (see Fixes tag), but this was inappropriate.
>
> First, syzkaller reported a bug [1].
> Second, it uses skb as an argument, but its implementation varies
On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 8:37 PM Rong Tao wrote:
>
> From: Rong Tao
>
> It is a bit troublesome to get cwd based on pid in bpf program, such as
> bpftrace example [1].
>
> This patch therefore adds a new bpf_task_cwd_from_pid() kfunc which
> allows BPF programs to get cwd from a pid.
>
> [1] https
On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 8:00 AM Alan Maguire wrote:
>
> > Hi Alan,
> >
> > Thanks for taking a look at this. I've been following your related effort
> > to allow /sys/kernel/btf/vmlinux as a module in support of small systems
> > with kernel-size constraints, and wondered how this series might aff
On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 2:23 AM Greg KH wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 02:45:11PM +0530, Saket Kumar Bhaskar wrote:
> > On linux-next, build for bpf selftest displays a warning:
> >
> > Warning: Kernel ABI header at 'tools/include/uapi/linux/if_xdp.h'
> > differs from latest version at 'includ
On Fri, May 9, 2025 at 11:39 AM wrote:
>
> Hello:
>
> This series was applied to bpf/bpf-next.git (master)
> by Alexei Starovoitov :
>
> On Thu, 1 May 2025 09:35:51 +0200 you wrote:
> > This improves the expressiveness of unprivileged BPF by inserting
> >
On Fri, May 9, 2025 at 5:24 AM Saket Kumar Bhaskar wrote:
>
> On linux-next, build for bpf selftest displays an error due to
> mismatch in the expected function signature of bpf_testmod_test_read
> and bpf_testmod_test_write.
>
> Commit 97d06802d10a ("sysfs: constify bin_attribute argument of
> b
On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 7:37 AM Lorenz Bauer wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 2, 2025 at 6:15 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> wrote:
> > remap_pfn_range() should be avoided.
> > See big comment in kernel/events/core.c in map_range().
> >
> > The following seems to work:
>
&g
On Fri, May 2, 2025 at 3:20 AM Lorenz Bauer wrote:
>
> User space needs access to kernel BTF for many modern features of BPF.
> Right now each process needs to read the BTF blob either in pieces or
> as a whole. Allow mmaping the sysfs file so that processes can directly
> access the memory alloca
On Thu, May 1, 2025 at 7:28 AM Lorenz Bauer wrote:
>
> User space needs access to kernel BTF for many modern features of BPF.
> Right now each process needs to read the BTF blob either in pieces or
> as a whole. Allow mmaping the sysfs file so that processes can directly
> access the memory alloca
On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 6:38 AM Alexis Lothoré
wrote:
>
> Hi Xu,
>
> On Thu Apr 24, 2025 at 2:00 PM CEST, Xu Kuohai wrote:
> > On 4/24/2025 3:24 AM, Alexis Lothoré wrote:
> >> Hi Andrii,
> >>
> >> On Wed Apr 23, 2025 at 7:15 PM CEST, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 12:14 AM Al
On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 8:16 AM KaFai Wan wrote:
>
> Adding support to access arguments with const void pointer arguments
> in tracing programs.
>
> Currently we allow tracing programs to access void pointers. If we try to
> access argument which is pointer to const void like 2nd argument in kfree
On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 12:31 AM Jiayuan Chen wrote:
>
> There are potential concurrency issues, as shown below.
> '''
> CPU0 CPU1
> sk_psock_verdict_data_ready:
> socket *sock = sk->sk_socket
> if (!sock) return
>close(fd):
>
On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 4:28 PM Andrii Nakryiko
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 11:33 AM Malaya Kumar Rout
> wrote:
> >
> > Static Analyis for bench_htab_mem.c with cppcheck:error
>
> typo: analysis (lower case and typo)
>
> you can also make into a bit more human-readable sentence:
>
> "Static
On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 5:27 PM Jiayuan Chen wrote:
>
> April 3, 2025 at 22:24, "Alexei Starovoitov"
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 30, 2025 at 8:27 PM Jiayuan Chen wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The device allocates an skb, it add
On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 7:32 AM Willem de Bruijn
wrote:
>
> Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 30, 2025 at 8:27 PM Jiayuan Chen wrote:
> > >
> > > The device allocates an skb, it additionally allocates a prepad size
> > > (usually equal to NET_SKB_PA
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 2:06 AM Luis Gerhorst wrote:
>
> Thank you very much for having a look. Let me know whether the above
> resolves your concern.
>
> In any case, should I separate patches 1-3 into another series?
Sorry for the delay. lsfmm was followed by the busy merge window.
Please reba
On Sun, Mar 30, 2025 at 8:27 PM Jiayuan Chen wrote:
>
> The device allocates an skb, it additionally allocates a prepad size
> (usually equal to NET_SKB_PAD or XDP_PACKET_HEADROOM) but leaves it
> uninitialized.
>
> The bpf_xdp_adjust_head function moves skb->data forward, which allows
> users to
On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 10:57 AM Luis Gerhorst wrote:
>
> This trades verification complexity for runtime overheads due to the
> nospec inserted because of the EINVAL.
>
> With increased limits this allows applying mitigations to large BPF
> progs such as the Parca Continuous Profiler's prog. Howe
On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 12:47 AM wrote:
>
> From: FengWei
>
> strncpy() is deprecated for NUL-terminated destination buffers. Use
> strscpy() instead and remove the manual NUL-termination.
>
> Signed-off-by: FengWei
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 3 +--
> 1 file changed,
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 12:07 AM Song Liu wrote:
> > + lskel = kfunc_call_test_lskel__open_and_load();
> > + if (!ASSERT_ERR_PTR(lskel, "lskel"))
> > + goto close_prog;
>
> This goto is not necessary. But I don't think we need v8 just for this.
I left goto as-is while ap
On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 6:27 AM Jiayuan Chen wrote:
>
> 1. Optimized some static bound port selftests to avoid port occupation
> when running test_progs -j.
> 2. Optimized the retry logic for test_maps.
Looks great. Applied.
Thank you for fixing them.
On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 6:43 PM Hou Tao wrote:
>
> >>
> >> lookup procedure A
> >> A: find the old element (instead of the new old)
> >>
> >> update procedure B
> >> B: delete the old element
> >> update procedure C on the same CPU:
> >> C: r
On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 5:48 PM Hou Tao wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2/27/2025 7:17 AM, Zvi Effron wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 9:42 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> > wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 8:05 PM Hou Tao wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>&
On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 9:01 AM Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2025, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
> >From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
> >
> >In !PREEMPT_RT local_lock_irqsave() disables interrupts to protect
> >critical section, but it doesn't prevent NMI, so the fully reentrant
> >code can
On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 8:05 PM Hou Tao wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2/26/2025 11:24 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 8, 2025 at 2:17 AM Hou Tao wrote:
> >> Hi Toke,
> >>
> >> On 2/6/2025 11:05 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>
On Sat, Feb 8, 2025 at 2:17 AM Hou Tao wrote:
>
> Hi Toke,
>
> On 2/6/2025 11:05 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> > Hou Tao writes:
> >
> >> +cc Cody Haas
> >>
> >> Sorry for the resend. I sent the reply in the HTML format.
> >>
> >> On 2/4/2025 4:28 PM, Hou Tao wrote:
> >>> Currently, the upd
On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 1:22 PM Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
>
> On 02/17, Bastien Curutchet (eBPF Foundation) wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Both tc_links.c and tc_opts.c do their tests on the loopback interface.
> > It prevents from parallelizing their executions.
> >
> > Use namespaces and the new app
On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 6:35 AM Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
> On 2/17/25 15:19, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2025-02-14 17:27:39 [+0100], Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
> >>
> >> In !PREEMPT_RT local_lock_irqsave() disables interrupts to protect
> >> critical
On Sat, Feb 8, 2025 at 11:32 AM Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 08, 2025 at 07:47:12AM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 10:42 PM Yafang Shao wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 2:01 AM Song Liu wrote:
> > > >
>
On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 10:42 PM Yafang Shao wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 2:01 AM Song Liu wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 6:55 PM Yafang Shao wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > I think we should first understand why the trampoline is not
> > > > freed.
> > >
> > > IIUC, the fexit works as follo
On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 9:45 PM Yan Zhai wrote:
>
> The generic_map_lookup_batch currently returns EINTR if it fails with
> ENOENT and retries several times on bpf_map_copy_value. The next batch
> would start from the same location, presuming it's a transient issue.
> This is incorrect if a map can
On Sat, Jan 25, 2025 at 7:25 AM Saket Kumar Bhaskar wrote:
>
> On powerpc, a CPU does not necessarily originate from NUMA node 0.
> This contrasts with architectures like x86, where CPU 0 is not
> hot-pluggable, making NUMA node 0 a consistently valid node.
> This discrepancy can lead to failures
On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 10:38 AM Saket Kumar Bhaskar
wrote:
>
> For platforms on powerpc architecture with a default page size greater
> than 4096, there was an inconsistency in fragment size calculation.
> This caused the BPF selftest xdp_adjust_tail/xdp_adjust_frags_tail_grow
> to fail on powerp
On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 1:55 PM Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 01:00:24PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 12:21 PM Paul E. McKenney
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > +/*
> > > + * Counts the new rea
On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 12:21 PM Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> +/*
> + * Counts the new reader in the appropriate per-CPU element of the
> + * srcu_struct. Returns a pointer that must be passed to the matching
> + * srcu_read_unlock_fast().
> + *
> + * Note that this_cpu_inc() is an RCU read-side c
On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 2:30 AM Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
>
> On 2024-12-30 16:50:41-0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 28, 2024 at 12:43 AM Thomas Weißschuh
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Most users use this function through the BIN_ATTR_SIMPLE* macr
On Sat, Dec 28, 2024 at 12:43 AM Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
>
> Most users use this function through the BIN_ATTR_SIMPLE* macros,
> they can handle the switch transparently.
>
> This series is meant to be merged through the driver core tree.
hmm. why?
I'd rather take patches 2 and 3 into bpf-next t
On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 4:43 PM Eduard Zingerman wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2024-12-19 at 17:40 -0700, Daniel Xu wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > Ok, thinking a bit more, the best test I can come up with is:
> > >
> > > u8 vals[8];
> > > vals[0] = 0;
> > > ...
> > > vals[6] = 0;
> > > vals[7] = 0xf;
> >
On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 11:04 AM Matan Shachnai wrote:
>
> This patch improves (or maintains) the precision of register value tracking
> in BPF_MUL across all possible inputs. It also simplifies
> scalar32_min_max_mul() and scalar_min_max_mul().
>
> As it stands, BPF_MUL is composed of three funct
On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 1:36 AM guanjing wrote:
>
> Fixes the following coccicheck:
>
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_loader.c:1033:64-69: WARNING: conversion to
> bool not needed here
>
> Fixes: 80a4129fcf20 ("selftests/bpf: Add unit tests for
> bpf_arena_alloc/free_pages")
> Signed-off-by:
On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 5:12 PM Daniel Xu wrote:
>
> This commit allows progs to elide a null check on statically known map
> lookup keys. In other words, if the verifier can statically prove that
> the lookup will be in-bounds, allow the prog to drop the null check.
>
> This is useful for two reas
On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 12:40 PM Daniel Xu wrote:
>
> +
> +/* Returns constant key value if possible, else -1 */
> +static long get_constant_map_key(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
> +struct bpf_reg_state *key)
> +{
> + struct bpf_func_state *state = func(env, k
On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 5:55 PM Daniel Xu wrote:
>
> Right now there exists prog produce / userspace consume and userspace
> produce / prog consume support. But it is also useful to have prog
> produce / prog consume.
>
> For example, we want to track the latency overhead of cpumap in
> production.
On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 9:33 AM Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/srcu.h b/include/linux/srcu.h
> index 84daaa33ea0ab..4ba96e2cfa405 100644
> --- a/include/linux/srcu.h
> +++ b/include/linux/srcu.h
...
> +static inline int srcu_read_lock_lite(struct srcu_struct *ssp)
> __acqu
On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 4:40 AM Puranjay Mohan wrote:
>
> Implement bpf_send_signal_pid and bpf_send_signal_tgid helpers which are
> similar to bpf_send_signal_thread and bpf_send_signal helpers
> respectively but can be used to send signals to other threads and
> processes.
Thanks for working on
On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 3:49 PM Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
> Functions marked for error injection can have an associated static key
> that guards the callsite(s) to avoid overhead of calling an empty
> function when no error injection is in progress.
>
> Outside of the error injection framework itse
On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 7:24 AM Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
> On 6/20/24 12:49 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > --- a/mm/slub.c
> > +++ b/mm/slub.c
> > @@ -3874,13 +3874,37 @@ static __always_inline void
> > maybe_wipe_obj_freeptr(struct kmem_cache *s,
> > 0, sizeof(void *));
> >
On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 3:49 PM Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
> When CONFIG_FUNCTION_ERROR_INJECTION is disabled,
> within_error_injection_list() will return false for any address and the
> result of check_non_sleepable_error_inject() denylist is thus redundant.
> The bpf_non_sleepable_error_inject lis
On Sat, Jun 1, 2024 at 1:57 PM Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
> On 5/31/24 6:43 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 2:33 AM Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> might_alloc(flags);
> >>
> >> - if (unlikely(should_failslab(s, fl
t; might_alloc(flags);
>
> - if (unlikely(should_failslab(s, flags)))
> - return NULL;
> + if (static_branch_unlikely(&should_failslab_active)) {
> + if (should_failslab(s, flags))
> + return NULL;
> + }
makes sense.
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov
Do you have any microbenchmark numbers before/after this optimization?
On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 1:49 PM Deepak Gupta wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 12:48:16PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> >hi,
> >as part of the effort on speeding up the uprobes [0] coming with
> >return uprobe optimization by using syscall instead of the trap
> >on the uretprobe trampoline.
>
> I und
On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 12:33 AM Ubisectech Sirius
wrote:
>
> Hello.
> We are Ubisectech Sirius Team, the vulnerability lab of China ValiantSec.
> Recently, our team has discovered a issue in Linux kernel 6.7. Attached to
> the email were a PoC file of the issue.
Jiri,
please take a look.
>
ICK_MMAP_LAYOUT)
> void arch_pick_mmap_layout(struct mm_struct *mm, struct rlimit *rlim_stack)
> {
> mm->mmap_base = TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE;
> - mm->get_unmapped_area = arch_get_unmapped_area;
> + clear_bit(MMF_TOPDOWN, &mm->flags);
> }
> #endif
Makes sense to me.
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov
for the idea and for bpf bits.
Hi Andrii,
syzbot found UAF in raw_tp cookie series in bpf-next.
Reverting the whole merge
2e244a72cd48 ("Merge branch 'bpf-raw-tracepoint-support-for-bpf-cookie'")
fixes the issue.
Pls take a look.
See C reproducer below. It splats consistently with CONFIG_KASAN=y
Thanks.
On Sun, Mar 24, 2024
On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 6:21 PM Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
>
> Thus, what I need is to make fprobe to use function-graph tracer's shadow
> stack and trampoline instead of rethook. This may need to generalize its
> interface so that we can share it between fprobe and function-graph tracer,
> but we
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 5:35 AM Florent Revest wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 12:54 AM Alexei Starovoitov
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 05:52:39PM +0200, Florent Revest wrote:
> > > This type provides the guarantee that an argument is going to be a co
On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 1:16 AM Christophe Leroy
wrote:
>
>
>
> Le 16/04/2021 à 01:49, Alexei Starovoitov a écrit :
> > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 8:41 AM Quentin Monnet
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> 2021-04-15 16:37 UTC+0200 ~ Daniel Borkmann
> >>
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 4:20 AM Tiezhu Yang wrote:
>
> There exist some errors "404 Not Found" when I click the link
> of "MAINTAINERS" [1], "samples/bpf/" [2] and "selftests" [3]
> in the documentation "HOWTO interact with BPF subsystem" [4].
>
> Use correct link of "MAINTAINERS" and just remove
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 05:52:39PM +0200, Florent Revest wrote:
> This type provides the guarantee that an argument is going to be a const
> pointer to somewhere in a read-only map value. It also checks that this
> pointer is followed by a zero character before the end of the map value.
>
> Signed
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 6:52 AM Pedro Tammela wrote:
>
> Em dom., 18 de abr. de 2021 às 19:56, Alexei Starovoitov
> escreveu:
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 1:03 PM Pedro Tammela wrote:
> > >
> > > ENOTSUPP is not a valid userland errno[1], which is a
On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 1:03 PM Pedro Tammela wrote:
>
> ENOTSUPP is not a valid userland errno[1], which is annoying for
> userland applications that implement a fallback to iterative, report
> errors via 'strerror()' or both.
>
> The batched ops return this errno whenever an operation
> is not i
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 8:41 AM Quentin Monnet wrote:
>
> 2021-04-15 16:37 UTC+0200 ~ Daniel Borkmann
> > On 4/15/21 11:32 AM, Jianlin Lv wrote:
> >> For debugging JITs, dumping the JITed image to kernel log is discouraged,
> >> "bpftool prog dump jited" is much better way to examine JITed dumps.
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 9:32 AM wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Alexei Starovoitov
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 9:19 AM wrote:
> > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Alexei Starovo
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 9:19 AM wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Alexei Starovoitov
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 9:10 AM wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > Fro
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 9:10 AM wrote:
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Alexei Starovoitov
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 2:52 AM Yang Li wrote:
> > >
> > > Fix the following coccicheck warnings:
> > > ./tools/
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 2:52 AM Yang Li wrote:
>
> Fix the following coccicheck warnings:
> ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h:189:7-11: WARNING
> comparing pointer to 0, suggest !E
> ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h:361:7-11: WARNING
> comparing pointer to 0, sug
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 12:11 AM Hao Sun wrote:
>
> Besides, another similar bug occurred while fault injection was enabled.
>
> BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request in bpf_prog_alloc_no_stats
>
> RAX: ffda RBX: 0
On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 12:38:06AM +0530, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 12:02:14AM IST, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 8:27 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
> > wrote:
> > > [...]
> >
> > All of these things are mess
On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 8:27 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
>
> This would be fine, because it's not a fast path or anything, but right now we
> return the id using the netlink response, otherwise for query we have to open
> the socket, prepare the msg, send and recv again. So it's a minor
> op
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 2:26 PM Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>
> On 3/30/21 10:39 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 1:11 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
> > wrote:
> >> On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 10:12:40AM IST, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> >>> Is there some succinct but complete enough docume
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 1:28 PM Andrii Nakryiko
wrote:
> >
> > In the other thread you've proposed to copy paste hash implemenation
> > into pahole. That's not ideal. If we had libbpfutil other projects
> > could have used that without copy-paste.
>
> I know it's not ideal. But I don't think libbp
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 3:54 PM Pedro Tammela wrote:
>
> BPF_CALL_2(bpf_ringbuf_submit, void *, sample, u64, flags)
> {
> + if (unlikely(flags & ~(BPF_RB_NO_WAKEUP | BPF_RB_FORCE_WAKEUP)))
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> bpf_ringbuf_commit(sample, flags, false /* discard */
On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 07:38:42PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> See above. I don't know which hassle is libbpf for users today. You
> were implying code size used for functionality users might not use
> (e.g., linker). Libbpf is a very small library, <300KB. There are
> users building tools f
On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 09:32:58PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > I think it's better to start with new library for tc/xdp and have
> > libbpf as a dependency on that new lib.
> > For example we can add it as subdir in tools/lib/bpf/.
> >
> > Similarly I think integerating static linking into li
On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 04:17:16PM +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Alexei Starovoitov writes:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 05:30:03PM +0530, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> >> This adds some basic tests for the low level bpf_tc_* API and its
> >> bpf_progr
On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 5:05 AM Atul Gopinathan
wrote:
>
> Currently, building the bpf-next source with the CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL
> enabled is causing a compilation error:
>
> "net/ipv4/bpf_tcp_ca.c:209:28: error: expected identifier or '(' before
> ',' token"
>
> Fix this by removing an unnecessary
On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 1:19 AM Jianlin Lv wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 5:40 AM Jianlin Lv wrote:
> > >
> > > When CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON is enabled, the value of
> > bpf_jit_enable
> > > in /proc/sys is limited to SYSCTL_ONE. This is not convenient for
> > > debugging.
> > > This patc
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 05:30:03PM +0530, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> This adds some basic tests for the low level bpf_tc_* API and its
> bpf_program__attach_tc_* wrapper on top.
*_block() apis from patch 3 and 4 are not covered by this selftest.
Why were they added ? And how were they tested
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 5:40 AM Jianlin Lv wrote:
>
> When CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON is enabled, the value of bpf_jit_enable in
> /proc/sys is limited to SYSCTL_ONE. This is not convenient for debugging.
> This patch modifies the value of extra2 (max) to 2 that support developers
> to emit traces o
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 11:02:08PM +0100, Florent Revest wrote:
>
> +struct bpf_snprintf_buf {
> + char buf[MAX_SNPRINTF_MEMCPY][MAX_SNPRINTF_STR_LEN];
> +};
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct bpf_snprintf_buf, bpf_snprintf_buf);
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, bpf_snprintf_buf_used);
> +
> +BPF_C
On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 8:17 AM Yonghong Song wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/19/21 12:21 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > On 3/19/21 3:11 AM, Piotr Krysiuk wrote:
> >> Hi Daniel,
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 12:16 AM Stephen Rothwell
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> diff --cc kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> >>> index 44e4
1 - 100 of 1284 matches
Mail list logo
