public inbox for bpf@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: patchwork-bot+netdevbpf@kernel.org
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net,
	martin.lau@kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com, sunhao.th@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf 1/2] bpf: fix control-flow graph checking in privileged mode
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2023 07:10:25 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <169960022589.7907.16307545616666162450.git-patchwork-notify@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231110061412.2995786-1-andrii@kernel.org>

Hello:

This series was applied to bpf/bpf.git (master)
by Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>:

On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 22:14:10 -0800 you wrote:
> When BPF program is verified in privileged mode, BPF verifier allows
> bounded loops. This means that from CFG point of view there are
> definitely some back-edges. Original commit adjusted check_cfg() logic
> to not detect back-edges in control flow graph if they are resulting
> from conditional jumps, which the idea that subsequent full BPF
> verification process will determine whether such loops are bounded or
> not, and either accept or reject the BPF program. At least that's my
> reading of the intent.
> 
> [...]

Here is the summary with links:
  - [bpf,1/2] bpf: fix control-flow graph checking in privileged mode
    https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf/c/10e14e9652bf
  - [bpf,2/2] selftests/bpf: add more test cases for check_cfg()
    https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf/c/e2e57d637aa5

You are awesome, thank you!
-- 
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html



      parent reply	other threads:[~2023-11-10  7:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-11-10  6:14 [PATCH bpf 1/2] bpf: fix control-flow graph checking in privileged mode Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-10  6:14 ` [PATCH bpf 2/2] selftests/bpf: add more test cases for check_cfg() Andrii Nakryiko
2023-11-10  7:10 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf [this message]

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=169960022589.7907.16307545616666162450.git-patchwork-notify@kernel.org \
    --to=patchwork-bot+netdevbpf@kernel.org \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
    --cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
    --cc=sunhao.th@gmail.com \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox