All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: ast@kernel.org, andrii@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net,
	martin.lau@linux.dev, eddyz87@gmail.com, song@kernel.org,
	yonghong.song@linux.dev, john.fastabend@gmail.com,
	kpsingh@kernel.org, sdf@fomichev.me, haoluo@google.com,
	jolsa@kernel.org, memxor@gmail.com, ameryhung@gmail.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-patches-bot@fb.com,
	Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v4 0/4] bpf: Free special fields when update hash and local storage maps
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 23:24:47 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20251030152451.62778-1-leon.hwang@linux.dev> (raw)

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
refcount of BPF_KPTR_REF field is not decremented 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

Similar case happens when update local storage maps with BPF_F_LOCK.

This series fixes the issues 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:
v3 -> v4:
* Target bpf-next tree.
* Address comments from Amery:
  * Drop 'bpf_obj_free_fields()' in the path of updating local storage
    maps without BPF_F_LOCK.
  * Drop the corresponding self test.
  * Respin the other test of local storage maps using syscall BPF
    programs.

v2 -> v3:
* Free special fields when update local storage maps without BPF_F_LOCK.
* Add test to verify decrementing refcount when update cgroup local
  storage maps without BPF_F_LOCK.
* Address review from AI bot:
  * Slow path with BPF_F_LOCK (around line 642-646) in
    'bpf_local_storage.c'.
* https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20251020164608.20536-1-leon.hwang@linux.dev/

v1 -> v2:
* Add test to verify decrementing refcount when update cgroup local
  storage maps with BPF_F_LOCK.
* Address review from AI bot:
  * Fast path without bucket lock (around line 610) in
    'bpf_local_storage.c'.
* https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20251016145801.47552-1-leon.hwang@linux.dev/

Leon Hwang (4):
  bpf: Free special fields when update [lru_,]percpu_hash maps
  bpf: Free special fields when update hash maps with BPF_F_LOCK
  bpf: Free special fields when update local storage maps with
    BPF_F_LOCK
  selftests/bpf: Add tests to verify freeing the special fields when
    update hash and local storage maps

 kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c                |   2 +
 kernel/bpf/hashtab.c                          |   4 +
 .../bpf/prog_tests/refcounted_kptr.c          | 134 +++++++++++++++++-
 .../selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr.c     | 129 +++++++++++++++++
 4 files changed, 268 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--
2.51.1


             reply	other threads:[~2025-10-30 15:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-10-30 15:24 Leon Hwang [this message]
2025-10-30 15:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 1/4] bpf: Free special fields when update [lru_,]percpu_hash maps Leon Hwang
2025-10-30 15:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 2/4] bpf: Free special fields when update hash maps with BPF_F_LOCK Leon Hwang
2025-10-30 15:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 3/4] bpf: Free special fields when update local storage " Leon Hwang
2025-10-30 22:35   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2025-11-03  5:17     ` Leon Hwang
2025-11-03 17:24       ` Alexei Starovoitov
2025-10-30 15:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 4/4] selftests/bpf: Add tests to verify freeing the special fields when update hash and local storage maps Leon Hwang
2025-11-04 17:30   ` Yonghong Song
2025-11-05  2:14     ` Leon Hwang
2025-11-05  3:35       ` Yonghong Song

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20251030152451.62778-1-leon.hwang@linux.dev \
    --to=leon.hwang@linux.dev \
    --cc=ameryhung@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --cc=haoluo@google.com \
    --cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
    --cc=kernel-patches-bot@fb.com \
    --cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
    --cc=memxor@gmail.com \
    --cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
    --cc=song@kernel.org \
    --cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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.