* [PATCH bpf v2 0/4] bpf: Fix possible memleak when updating hash and local storage maps
@ 2025-10-20 16:46 Leon Hwang
2025-10-20 16:46 ` [PATCH bpf v2 1/4] bpf: Fix possible memleak in [lru_,]percpu_hash map update Leon Hwang
` (3 more replies)
0 siblings, 4 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Leon Hwang @ 2025-10-20 16:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bpf
Cc: ast, andrii, daniel, martin.lau, eddyz87, song, yonghong.song,
john.fastabend, kpsingh, sdf, haoluo, jolsa, memxor, linux-kernel,
kernel-patches-bot, Leon Hwang
In the discussion thread
"[PATCH bpf-next v9 0/7] bpf: Introduce BPF_F_CPU and BPF_F_ALL_CPUS flags for percpu maps"[1],
it was pointed out that missing calls to bpf_obj_free_fields() could
lead to memory leaks.
A selftest was added to confirm that this is indeed a real issue - the
memory referenced by BPF_KPTR_{REF,PERCPU} fields is not freed when
bpf_obj_free_fields() is missing after copy_map_value[,_long]().
Further inspection of copy_map_value[,_long]() call sites revealed two
locations affected by this issue:
1. pcpu_copy_value()
2. htab_map_update_elem() when used with BPF_F_LOCK
This series fixes the leaks by properly calling bpf_obj_free_fields()
(or check_and_free_fields()) after copy_map_value[,_long]() and adds
selftests to verify the fix.
Changes:
v1 -> v2:
* Add test to verify no memleak when updating cgroup local storage maps.
* Address review from AI bot:
* Fast path without bucket lock (around line 610) in
'bpf_local_storage.c'.
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20251016145801.47552-1-leon.hwang@linux.dev/
Links:
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20250930153942.41781-1-leon.hwang@linux.dev/
Leon Hwang (4):
bpf: Fix possible memleak in [lru_,]percpu_hash map update
bpf: Fix possible memleak when updating hash maps with BPF_F_LOCK
bpf: Fix possible memleak when updating local storage maps with
BPF_F_LOCK
selftests/bpf: Add tests to verify no memleak when updating hash and
cgrp storage maps
kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c | 1 +
kernel/bpf/hashtab.c | 4 +
.../bpf/prog_tests/refcounted_kptr.c | 167 +++++++++++++++++-
.../selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr.c | 160 +++++++++++++++++
4 files changed, 331 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
--
2.51.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [PATCH bpf v2 1/4] bpf: Fix possible memleak in [lru_,]percpu_hash map update
2025-10-20 16:46 [PATCH bpf v2 0/4] bpf: Fix possible memleak when updating hash and local storage maps Leon Hwang
@ 2025-10-20 16:46 ` Leon Hwang
2025-10-20 16:46 ` [PATCH bpf v2 2/4] bpf: Fix possible memleak when updating hash maps with BPF_F_LOCK Leon Hwang
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Leon Hwang @ 2025-10-20 16:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bpf
Cc: ast, andrii, daniel, martin.lau, eddyz87, song, yonghong.song,
john.fastabend, kpsingh, sdf, haoluo, jolsa, memxor, linux-kernel,
kernel-patches-bot, Leon Hwang
As [lru_,]percpu_hash maps support BPF_KPTR_{REF,PERCPU}, missing
calls to 'bpf_obj_free_fields()' in 'pcpu_copy_value()' can leak memory
referenced by BPF_KPTR_{REF,PERCPU} fields.
Fix this by calling 'bpf_obj_free_fields()' after
'copy_map_value[,_long]()' in 'pcpu_copy_value()'.
Fixes: 65334e64a493 ("bpf: Support kptrs in percpu hashmap and percpu LRU hashmap")
Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>
---
kernel/bpf/hashtab.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c b/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
index c2fcd0cd51e51..26308adc9ccb3 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
@@ -950,12 +950,14 @@ static void pcpu_copy_value(struct bpf_htab *htab, void __percpu *pptr,
if (!onallcpus) {
/* copy true value_size bytes */
copy_map_value(&htab->map, this_cpu_ptr(pptr), value);
+ bpf_obj_free_fields(htab->map.record, this_cpu_ptr(pptr));
} else {
u32 size = round_up(htab->map.value_size, 8);
int off = 0, cpu;
for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
copy_map_value_long(&htab->map, per_cpu_ptr(pptr, cpu), value + off);
+ bpf_obj_free_fields(htab->map.record, per_cpu_ptr(pptr, cpu));
off += size;
}
}
--
2.51.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [PATCH bpf v2 2/4] bpf: Fix possible memleak when updating hash maps with BPF_F_LOCK
2025-10-20 16:46 [PATCH bpf v2 0/4] bpf: Fix possible memleak when updating hash and local storage maps Leon Hwang
2025-10-20 16:46 ` [PATCH bpf v2 1/4] bpf: Fix possible memleak in [lru_,]percpu_hash map update Leon Hwang
@ 2025-10-20 16:46 ` Leon Hwang
2025-10-20 16:46 ` [PATCH bpf v2 3/4] bpf: Fix possible memleak when updating local storage " Leon Hwang
2025-10-20 16:46 ` [PATCH bpf v2 4/4] selftests/bpf: Add tests to verify no memleak when updating hash and cgrp storage maps Leon Hwang
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Leon Hwang @ 2025-10-20 16:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bpf
Cc: ast, andrii, daniel, martin.lau, eddyz87, song, yonghong.song,
john.fastabend, kpsingh, sdf, haoluo, jolsa, memxor, linux-kernel,
kernel-patches-bot, Leon Hwang
When updating hash maps with BPF_F_LOCK, the special fields were not
freed after being replaced. This could cause memory referenced by
BPF_KPTR_{REF,PERCPU} fields to leak.
Fix this by calling 'check_and_free_fields()' after
'copy_map_value_locked()' to properly release the old fields.
Fixes: 14a324f6a67e ("bpf: Wire up freeing of referenced kptr")
Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>
---
kernel/bpf/hashtab.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c b/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
index 26308adc9ccb3..65009ea3e9379 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
@@ -1124,6 +1124,7 @@ static long htab_map_update_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key, void *value,
copy_map_value_locked(map,
htab_elem_value(l_old, key_size),
value, false);
+ check_and_free_fields(htab, l_old);
return 0;
}
/* fall through, grab the bucket lock and lookup again.
@@ -1152,6 +1153,7 @@ static long htab_map_update_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key, void *value,
copy_map_value_locked(map,
htab_elem_value(l_old, key_size),
value, false);
+ check_and_free_fields(htab, l_old);
ret = 0;
goto err;
}
--
2.51.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [PATCH bpf v2 3/4] bpf: Fix possible memleak when updating local storage maps with BPF_F_LOCK
2025-10-20 16:46 [PATCH bpf v2 0/4] bpf: Fix possible memleak when updating hash and local storage maps Leon Hwang
2025-10-20 16:46 ` [PATCH bpf v2 1/4] bpf: Fix possible memleak in [lru_,]percpu_hash map update Leon Hwang
2025-10-20 16:46 ` [PATCH bpf v2 2/4] bpf: Fix possible memleak when updating hash maps with BPF_F_LOCK Leon Hwang
@ 2025-10-20 16:46 ` Leon Hwang
2025-10-20 16:46 ` [PATCH bpf v2 4/4] selftests/bpf: Add tests to verify no memleak when updating hash and cgrp storage maps Leon Hwang
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Leon Hwang @ 2025-10-20 16:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bpf
Cc: ast, andrii, daniel, martin.lau, eddyz87, song, yonghong.song,
john.fastabend, kpsingh, sdf, haoluo, jolsa, memxor, linux-kernel,
kernel-patches-bot, Leon Hwang
When updating local storage maps with BPF_F_LOCK, the special fields
were not freed after being replaced. This could cause memory referenced
by BPF_KPTR_{REF,PERCPU} fields to leak.
Fix this by calling 'bpf_obj_free_fields()' after
'copy_map_value_locked()' to properly release the old fields.
Fixes: 9db44fdd8105 ("bpf: Support kptrs in local storage maps")
Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>
---
kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c
index b931fbceb54da..2b7bd47e99b33 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c
@@ -609,6 +609,7 @@ bpf_local_storage_update(void *owner, struct bpf_local_storage_map *smap,
if (old_sdata && selem_linked_to_storage_lockless(SELEM(old_sdata))) {
copy_map_value_locked(&smap->map, old_sdata->data,
value, false);
+ bpf_obj_free_fields(smap->map.record, old_sdata->data);
return old_sdata;
}
}
--
2.51.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [PATCH bpf v2 4/4] selftests/bpf: Add tests to verify no memleak when updating hash and cgrp storage maps
2025-10-20 16:46 [PATCH bpf v2 0/4] bpf: Fix possible memleak when updating hash and local storage maps Leon Hwang
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2025-10-20 16:46 ` [PATCH bpf v2 3/4] bpf: Fix possible memleak when updating local storage " Leon Hwang
@ 2025-10-20 16:46 ` Leon Hwang
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Leon Hwang @ 2025-10-20 16:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bpf
Cc: ast, andrii, daniel, martin.lau, eddyz87, song, yonghong.song,
john.fastabend, kpsingh, sdf, haoluo, jolsa, memxor, linux-kernel,
kernel-patches-bot, Leon Hwang
Add tests to verify that updating hash and local storage maps does not
leak memory when BPF_KPTR_REF objects are involved.
The tests perform the following steps:
1. Call update_elem() to insert an initial value.
2. Use bpf_refcount_acquire() to increment the refcount.
3. Store the node pointer in the map value.
4. Add the node to a linked list.
5. Probe-read the refcount and verify it is *2*.
6. Call update_elem() again to trigger refcount decrement.
7. Probe-read the refcount and verify it is *1*.
Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>
---
.../bpf/prog_tests/refcounted_kptr.c | 167 +++++++++++++++++-
.../selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr.c | 160 +++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 326 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/refcounted_kptr.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/refcounted_kptr.c
index d6bd5e16e6372..83a59c68e70cb 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/refcounted_kptr.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/refcounted_kptr.c
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
#include <test_progs.h>
#include <network_helpers.h>
-
+#include "cgroup_helpers.h"
#include "refcounted_kptr.skel.h"
#include "refcounted_kptr_fail.skel.h"
@@ -44,3 +44,168 @@ void test_refcounted_kptr_wrong_owner(void)
ASSERT_OK(opts.retval, "rbtree_wrong_owner_remove_fail_a2 retval");
refcounted_kptr__destroy(skel);
}
+
+static void test_refcnt_leak(void *values, size_t values_sz, u64 flags, struct bpf_map *map,
+ struct bpf_program *prog_leak, struct bpf_program *prog_check)
+{
+ int ret, fd, key = 0;
+ LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_test_run_opts, opts,
+ .data_in = &pkt_v4,
+ .data_size_in = sizeof(pkt_v4),
+ .repeat = 1,
+ );
+
+ ret = bpf_map__update_elem(map, &key, sizeof(key), values, values_sz, flags);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(ret, "bpf_map__update_elem init"))
+ return;
+
+ fd = bpf_program__fd(prog_leak);
+ ret = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(fd, &opts);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(ret, "test_run_opts"))
+ return;
+ if (!ASSERT_EQ(opts.retval, 2, "retval refcount"))
+ return;
+
+ ret = bpf_map__update_elem(map, &key, sizeof(key), values, values_sz, flags);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(ret, "bpf_map__update_elem dec refcount"))
+ return;
+
+ fd = bpf_program__fd(prog_check);
+ ret = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(fd, &opts);
+ ASSERT_OK(ret, "test_run_opts");
+ ASSERT_EQ(opts.retval, 1, "retval");
+}
+
+static void test_percpu_hash_refcount_leak(void)
+{
+ struct refcounted_kptr *skel;
+ size_t values_sz;
+ u64 *values;
+ int cpu_nr;
+
+ cpu_nr = libbpf_num_possible_cpus();
+ if (!ASSERT_GT(cpu_nr, 0, "libbpf_num_possible_cpus"))
+ return;
+
+ values = calloc(cpu_nr, sizeof(u64));
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(values, "calloc values"))
+ return;
+
+ skel = refcounted_kptr__open_and_load();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "refcounted_kptr__open_and_load")) {
+ free(values);
+ return;
+ }
+
+ values_sz = cpu_nr * sizeof(u64);
+ memset(values, 0, values_sz);
+
+ test_refcnt_leak(values, values_sz, 0, skel->maps.pcpu_hash,
+ skel->progs.pcpu_hash_refcount_leak,
+ skel->progs.check_pcpu_hash_refcount);
+
+ refcounted_kptr__destroy(skel);
+ free(values);
+}
+
+struct lock_map_value {
+ u64 kptr;
+ struct bpf_spin_lock lock;
+ int value;
+};
+
+static void test_hash_lock_refcount_leak(void)
+{
+ struct lock_map_value value = {};
+ struct refcounted_kptr *skel;
+
+ skel = refcounted_kptr__open_and_load();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "refcounted_kptr__open_and_load"))
+ return;
+
+ test_refcnt_leak(&value, sizeof(value), BPF_F_LOCK, skel->maps.lock_hash,
+ skel->progs.hash_lock_refcount_leak,
+ skel->progs.check_hash_lock_refcount);
+
+ refcounted_kptr__destroy(skel);
+}
+
+static void test_cgroup_storage_lock_refcount_leak(void)
+{
+ int server_fd = -1, client_fd = -1;
+ struct lock_map_value value = {};
+ struct refcounted_kptr *skel;
+ u64 flags = BPF_F_LOCK;
+ struct bpf_link *link;
+ struct bpf_map *map;
+ int cgroup, err;
+
+ cgroup = test__join_cgroup("/cg_refcount_leak");
+ if (!ASSERT_GE(cgroup, 0, "test__join_cgroup"))
+ return;
+
+ skel = refcounted_kptr__open_and_load();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "refcounted_kptr__open_and_load"))
+ goto out;
+
+ link = bpf_program__attach_cgroup(skel->progs.cgroup_storage_refcount_leak, cgroup);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(link, "bpf_program__attach_cgroup"))
+ goto out;
+ skel->links.cgroup_storage_refcount_leak = link;
+
+ server_fd = start_server(AF_INET6, SOCK_STREAM, "::1", 0, 0);
+ if (!ASSERT_GE(server_fd, 0, "start_server"))
+ goto out;
+
+ client_fd = connect_to_fd(server_fd, 0);
+ if (!ASSERT_GE(client_fd, 0, "connect_to_fd"))
+ goto out;
+
+ map = skel->maps.cgrp_strg;
+ err = bpf_map__lookup_elem(map, &cgroup, sizeof(cgroup), &value, sizeof(value), flags);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "bpf_map__lookup_elem"))
+ goto out;
+
+ ASSERT_EQ(value.value, 2, "refcount");
+
+ err = bpf_map__update_elem(map, &cgroup, sizeof(cgroup), &value, sizeof(value), flags);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "bpf_map__update_elem"))
+ goto out;
+
+ err = bpf_link__detach(skel->links.cgroup_storage_refcount_leak);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "bpf_link__detach"))
+ goto out;
+
+ link = bpf_program__attach(skel->progs.check_cgroup_storage_refcount);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(link, "bpf_program__attach"))
+ goto out;
+ skel->links.check_cgroup_storage_refcount = link;
+
+ close(client_fd);
+ client_fd = connect_to_fd(server_fd, 0);
+ if (!ASSERT_GE(client_fd, 0, "connect_to_fd"))
+ goto out;
+
+ err = bpf_map__lookup_elem(map, &cgroup, sizeof(cgroup), &value, sizeof(value), flags);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "bpf_map__lookup_elem"))
+ goto out;
+
+ ASSERT_EQ(value.value, 1, "refcount");
+out:
+ close(cgroup);
+ refcounted_kptr__destroy(skel);
+ if (client_fd >= 0)
+ close(client_fd);
+ if (server_fd >= 0)
+ close(server_fd);
+}
+
+void test_kptr_refcount_leak(void)
+{
+ if (test__start_subtest("percpu_hash_refcount_leak"))
+ test_percpu_hash_refcount_leak();
+ if (test__start_subtest("hash_lock_refcount_leak"))
+ test_hash_lock_refcount_leak();
+ if (test__start_subtest("cgroup_storage_lock_refcount_leak"))
+ test_cgroup_storage_lock_refcount_leak();
+}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr.c
index 893a4fdb4b6e9..09efae9537c9b 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr.c
@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
#include <bpf/bpf_core_read.h>
#include "bpf_misc.h"
#include "bpf_experimental.h"
+#include "bpf_tracing_net.h"
extern void bpf_rcu_read_lock(void) __ksym;
extern void bpf_rcu_read_unlock(void) __ksym;
@@ -568,4 +569,163 @@ int BPF_PROG(rbtree_sleepable_rcu_no_explicit_rcu_lock,
return 0;
}
+private(leak) u64 ref;
+
+static u32 probe_read_refcount(void)
+{
+ u32 refcnt;
+
+ bpf_probe_read_kernel(&refcnt, sizeof(refcnt), (void *) ref);
+ return refcnt;
+}
+
+static int __insert_in_list(struct bpf_list_head *head, struct bpf_spin_lock *lock,
+ struct node_data __kptr **node)
+{
+ struct node_data *n, *m;
+
+ n = bpf_obj_new(typeof(*n));
+ if (!n)
+ return -1;
+
+ m = bpf_refcount_acquire(n);
+ n = bpf_kptr_xchg(node, n);
+ if (n) {
+ bpf_obj_drop(n);
+ bpf_obj_drop(m);
+ return -2;
+ }
+
+ bpf_spin_lock(lock);
+ bpf_list_push_front(head, &m->l);
+ ref = (u64)(void *) &m->ref;
+ bpf_spin_unlock(lock);
+ return probe_read_refcount();
+}
+
+static void *__lookup_map(void *map)
+{
+ int key = 0;
+
+ return bpf_map_lookup_elem(map, &key);
+}
+
+struct {
+ __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_HASH);
+ __type(key, int);
+ __type(value, struct map_value);
+ __uint(max_entries, 1);
+} pcpu_hash SEC(".maps");
+
+SEC("tc")
+int pcpu_hash_refcount_leak(void *ctx)
+{
+ struct map_value *v;
+
+ v = __lookup_map(&pcpu_hash);
+ if (!v)
+ return 0;
+
+ return __insert_in_list(&head, &lock, &v->node);
+}
+
+SEC("tc")
+int check_pcpu_hash_refcount(void *ctx)
+{
+ return probe_read_refcount();
+}
+
+struct lock_map_value {
+ struct node_data __kptr *node;
+ struct bpf_spin_lock lock;
+ int value;
+};
+
+struct {
+ __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_HASH);
+ __type(key, int);
+ __type(value, struct lock_map_value);
+ __uint(max_entries, 1);
+} lock_hash SEC(".maps");
+
+SEC("tc")
+int hash_lock_refcount_leak(void *ctx)
+{
+ struct lock_map_value *v;
+
+ v = __lookup_map(&lock_hash);
+ if (!v)
+ return 0;
+
+ bpf_spin_lock(&v->lock);
+ v->value = 42;
+ bpf_spin_unlock(&v->lock);
+ return __insert_in_list(&head, &lock, &v->node);
+}
+
+SEC("tc")
+int check_hash_lock_refcount(void *ctx)
+{
+ return probe_read_refcount();
+}
+
+struct {
+ __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_CGRP_STORAGE);
+ __uint(map_flags, BPF_F_NO_PREALLOC);
+ __type(key, int);
+ __type(value, struct lock_map_value);
+} cgrp_strg SEC(".maps");
+
+SEC("cgroup/connect6")
+int cgroup_storage_refcount_leak(struct bpf_sock_addr *ctx)
+{
+ struct lock_map_value *v;
+ struct tcp_sock *tsk;
+ struct bpf_sock *sk;
+ u32 refcnt;
+
+ if (ctx->family != AF_INET6 || ctx->user_family != AF_INET6)
+ return 1;
+
+ sk = ctx->sk;
+ if (!sk)
+ return 1;
+
+ tsk = bpf_skc_to_tcp_sock(sk);
+ if (!tsk)
+ return 1;
+
+ v = bpf_cgrp_storage_get(&cgrp_strg, tsk->inet_conn.icsk_inet.sk.sk_cgrp_data.cgroup, 0,
+ BPF_LOCAL_STORAGE_GET_F_CREATE);
+ if (!v)
+ return 1;
+
+ refcnt = __insert_in_list(&head, &lock, &v->node);
+ bpf_spin_lock(&v->lock);
+ v->value = refcnt;
+ bpf_spin_unlock(&v->lock);
+ return 1;
+}
+
+SEC("fexit/inet_stream_connect")
+int BPF_PROG(check_cgroup_storage_refcount, struct socket *sock, struct sockaddr *uaddr, int addr_len,
+ int flags)
+{
+ struct lock_map_value *v;
+ u32 refcnt;
+
+ if (uaddr->sa_family != AF_INET6)
+ return 0;
+
+ v = bpf_cgrp_storage_get(&cgrp_strg, sock->sk->sk_cgrp_data.cgroup, 0, 0);
+ if (!v)
+ return 0;
+
+ refcnt = probe_read_refcount();
+ bpf_spin_lock(&v->lock);
+ v->value = refcnt;
+ bpf_spin_unlock(&v->lock);
+ return 0;
+}
+
char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
--
2.51.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2025-10-20 16:46 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2025-10-20 16:46 [PATCH bpf v2 0/4] bpf: Fix possible memleak when updating hash and local storage maps Leon Hwang
2025-10-20 16:46 ` [PATCH bpf v2 1/4] bpf: Fix possible memleak in [lru_,]percpu_hash map update Leon Hwang
2025-10-20 16:46 ` [PATCH bpf v2 2/4] bpf: Fix possible memleak when updating hash maps with BPF_F_LOCK Leon Hwang
2025-10-20 16:46 ` [PATCH bpf v2 3/4] bpf: Fix possible memleak when updating local storage " Leon Hwang
2025-10-20 16:46 ` [PATCH bpf v2 4/4] selftests/bpf: Add tests to verify no memleak when updating hash and cgrp storage maps Leon Hwang
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.