From: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>
To: bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org,
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, shuah@kernel.org, yangfeng@kylinos.cn,
menglong8.dong@gmail.com, puranjay@kernel.org, bjorn@kernel.org,
pulehui@huawei.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-patches-bot@fb.com, martin.lau@kernel.org, clm@meta.com,
ihor.solodrai@linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/6] bpf: Disallow !kprobe_write_ctx progs tail-calling kprobe_write_ctx progs
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2026 09:44:54 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6d7b89fc-994b-41c8-b545-630d4e2f884f@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d1728faa022db83c9e5ab0245579eb1b1d176495744953f9ab66e0864ed31025@mail.kernel.org>
On 2/3/26 23:53, bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org wrote:
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> +enum bpf_map_owner_match_type {
>> + BPF_MAP_OWNER_MATCH_FOR_INIT,
>> + BPF_MAP_OWNER_MATCH_FOR_UPDATE,
>> +};
>> +
>> static bool bpf_map_owner_matches(const struct bpf_map *map, const struct bpf_prog *fp,
>> - enum bpf_prog_type prog_type)
>> + enum bpf_prog_type prog_type,
>> + enum bpf_map_owner_match_type match)
>> {
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> + switch (match) {
>> + case BPF_MAP_OWNER_MATCH_FOR_INIT:
>> + if (owner->kprobe_write_ctx != aux->kprobe_write_ctx)
>> + return false;
>> + break;
>> +
>> + case BPF_MAP_OWNER_MATCH_FOR_UPDATE:
>> + if (!owner->kprobe_write_ctx && aux->kprobe_write_ctx)
>> + return false;
>> + break;
>> + }
>
> In the v1 review, Alexei Starovoitov asked for strict conformance
> both ways rather than one-directional validation:
>
> "Don't be fancy. Require strict conformance both ways
> in *all* patches."
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAADnVQ+-V0-1i8_+CYpK7G0CnV-2n8e9Szv43yM3Az197eL_0A@mail.gmail.com/
>
> The BPF_MAP_OWNER_MATCH_FOR_UPDATE case still uses one-directional
> matching, rejecting only !owner->kprobe_write_ctx && aux->kprobe_write_ctx
> but allowing the reverse. The v2 changelog lists other Alexei comments
> as addressed but does not mention this one.
>
> Was this an intentional design choice, and if so, should the changelog
> note the disagreement?
>
This was intentional design choice.
My explanation in v1 should address his concern.
As his disagreement was not part of the patch series, should I note it
in changelog?
Thanks,
Leon
>
> ---
> AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
> See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md
>
> CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/22582690876
>
> AI-authorship-score: medium
> AI-authorship-explanation: Confirmed LLM involvement in v1 development process (selftests called out by reviewer), but core code changes and v2 revisions appear human-authored with genuine design engagement.
> issues-found: 1
> issue-severity-score: low
> issue-severity-explanation: Unaddressed maintainer review comment requesting symmetric matching in the UPDATE path; not a code bug or security concern.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-03 1:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-02 15:03 [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/6] bpf: Enhance __bpf_prog_map_compatible() Leon Hwang
2026-03-02 15:03 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/6] bpf: Add fsession to verbose log in check_get_func_ip() Leon Hwang
2026-03-02 15:03 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/6] bpf: Factor out bpf_map_owner_[init,matches]() helpers Leon Hwang
2026-03-02 15:03 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/6] bpf: Disallow !kprobe_write_ctx progs tail-calling kprobe_write_ctx progs Leon Hwang
2026-03-02 15:53 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-03-03 1:44 ` Leon Hwang [this message]
2026-03-02 15:03 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 4/6] bpf: Disallow !call_get_func_ip progs tail-calling call_get_func_ip progs Leon Hwang
2026-03-02 15:53 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-03-03 1:47 ` Leon Hwang
2026-03-02 15:03 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 5/6] bpf: Disallow !call_session_cookie progs tail-calling call_session_cookie progs Leon Hwang
2026-03-02 15:03 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 6/6] selftests/bpf: Add tests to verify prog_array map compatibility Leon Hwang
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=6d7b89fc-994b-41c8-b545-630d4e2f884f@linux.dev \
--to=leon.hwang@linux.dev \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bjorn@kernel.org \
--cc=bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=clm@meta.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=haoluo@google.com \
--cc=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
--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=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=menglong8.dong@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pulehui@huawei.com \
--cc=puranjay@kernel.org \
--cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=yangfeng@kylinos.cn \
--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.