From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE1B142A168; Wed, 9 Sep 2026 20:27:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788985631; cv=none; b=WBPXaXu55h+ajNxRXMTsE8hySN8sZUZXl+EB5fH4JVTI6iRESWIfuRDd3tMQxYENrwNCR+Un2Gk6S0EXe3qwwsAU4SLF8lwmbFTjdCmevlMx/cm4MCb4vp3yhlPGzPnz+sJ1c3ZZmvsWbxr8si9y7SCwbCLTgveea6Gqo9HvE7M= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788985631; c=relaxed/simple; bh=J25A3dPuOdnA/m1lTkwhfvP5N+xRrHCX3pNi38tvZlY=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=ZpeWorURb3Bsv/d6K76P48p38LgJ7D8erMiasHnEUbpfLYE6TcMzJum5XbsXmWhVPrcC+5UULRJ2LTjzJ/gIbIiMjGqAGF4j+9fdlq0FnXSq72GxUJvZngQEvC5YeFE26UgQVrFMXqaE0gxtl6OfYChYPgkPASesTFa7/m1mIes= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=omn3XP22; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="omn3XP22" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 736171F00899; Wed, 9 Sep 2026 20:27:03 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1788985625; bh=1WkAA8rYM1cRIQUgKxx429MxBXubZ1B+gbpFHLpZa7c=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=omn3XP22Qxae/GpSuV/ewrlt1UM3WMwjbh6Rjn1JRhnxeBugjxzxBIs3O0eXSjnz4 Kb1lIrx0X2Z23mhmFrisut+NTfrduidEulnx13lwBecWH0uHe/WzsdoLlp52vbSxuw gsGDGw5klT1D4fafjIhedpWDgLHnHLkbC4pCgZSPV75FcH/S0nkT0l+5CejwS1ZxNA 0PBWID9K1Ig3vtLnIUN2tF51ct4P9rwx198Uv5WMKLqNEc5kh7QwzyrVy7miVuIh4u j7Kzu8iIMztF4F7Mg6hMc2/3z2T49k3PTf0uj1hK2MeHfCqQLY6zoWKmEtTzEU+ZWj UN5VKHo5NsmDw== From: Sasha Levin To: stable@vger.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Andrii Nakryiko , Martin KaFai Lau , Song Liu , Yonghong Song , John Fastabend , KP Singh , "David S. Miller" , Jakub Kicinski , Jesper Dangaard Brouer , Andrey Ignatov Cc: Sasha Levin , Thomas Petazzoni , netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Yinhao Hu , Kaiyan Mei , Dongliang Mu , "Miguel Gazquez (Schneider Electric)" Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10.y] bpf: Enforce expected_attach_type for tailcall compatibility Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2026 16:26:29 -0400 Message-ID: <2026-09-09-daily-reply-0031-bpf-tailcall-attach-type-5-10@kernel.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.53.0 In-Reply-To: <20260908-cve-2025-40123-v1-1-be62451196fb@bootlin.com> References: <20260908-cve-2025-40123-v1-1-be62451196fb@bootlin.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > The underlying issue goes beyond XDP though. Another example are programs > of type BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCK_ADDR. sock_addr_is_valid_access() as well > as sock_addr_func_proto() have different logic depending on the programs' > expected_attach_type. Thanks for the 5.10.y backport of 4540aed51b12 ("bpf: Enforce expected_attach_type for tailcall compatibility"). Holding this until a 5.15.y version exists too, since fixes need to land on newer trees first. -- Thanks, Sasha