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 A4A89406816 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2026 10:35:34 +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=1783593335; cv=none; b=RmdeH+f517wMf9zdzq9hVlKFn3tiqzreMks+pimZkZNOOAGyfAyrJZWFzDdT5o4PKu22xXgZQIMqZQ6uCKWXbcGU9OsQSe3JdOouD+jdVjHk2oadVFg91PHuHRRWiQt02BfipxdWsQFSJdzvcXItizpqpa6gcqmqnf2VUfXu4qs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783593335; c=relaxed/simple; bh=3QyryRvLvijlZ5n0G7D3HTuKUFaPyc+OrQQT9h3HdGA=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=VByGH2/ZOijwtmZpF06WB8VzGj0NUhrdd+d/EQBfZPI5u7+jrFWeKMpcCUWssrRcRO7dRxcCrP16eeewzRZiyVX8N9eT2XSg8wnznIYDtbmk/qyaeKGapqlQjLFJCzMGjTwHMpIGcJOkoRgBaHvzCDfOCQ9afBJG6OJhG+89vvo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=flX8fhrz; 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="flX8fhrz" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F27C11F00A3A; Thu, 9 Jul 2026 10:35:33 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1783593334; bh=/up9Gu+UjKWg4SCwSDv+NRzwdbSX6da53T6vXuSMqxA=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=flX8fhrz0I8Y+Yxx03fuy1/4btwmQHemcNvVLAeEohpfXJusRmStgV9N/rkjcSC1l YfsDxzlf950VBkPt1y+z74Qq2qLIpKmcYKopDu/mzw2X6sOW3gJ6jljsCRkyHUemqW YYh3qJ01GSdurhFHWK+3SDRvfWAoOnEB7sw2wjn2CQoZomLauMzrDttcZr9ZwHJ5fd yhZCfJEc7DHXn0iTOI7Qgqp4TGRSlT6ZDiMDnMkLI/1cnweAeIm3kQNPPPLuAM1bsK 1GqawG2qGZjsdYa7/CfDlUHyiBiezczJDeGzAd8JIJiQCle5LcXSR0jNcZ1DaJFnhg P//GBI2j3WZHA== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 02/10] bpf: mark instructions accessing program stack Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: =?utf-8?b?QWxleGlzIExvdGhvcsOpIChlQlBGIEZvdW5kYXRpb24p?= Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260709-kasan-v5-2-1c64af8e4e1e@bootlin.com> References: <20260709-kasan-v5-0-1c64af8e4e1e@bootlin.com> <20260709-kasan-v5-2-1c64af8e4e1e@bootlin.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2026 10:35:33 +0000 Message-Id: <20260709103533.F27C11F00A3A@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [Low] Multi-line comment does not follow the modern kernel/BPF comment st= yle. -- --- Patch [2]: [PATCH bpf-next v5 02/10] bpf: mark instructions accessing p= rogram stack --- commit 03ab01d124457ab321033266bf176b6f34230aec Author: Alexis Lothor=C3=A9 (eBPF Foundation) bpf: mark instructions accessing program stack JIT compilers need to know if load/store instructions target the BPF stack = to avoid over-instrumenting them with KASAN checks. This commit makes the verifier mark instructions accordingly, setting non-stack-access true if any state leads to an access other than PTR_TO_STACK. It also ensures instructi= on patching maintains correct markings. > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/fixups.c b/kernel/bpf/fixups.c > index 188ea6205d617..0eda5512baece 100644 > --- a/kernel/bpf/fixups.c > +++ b/kernel/bpf/fixups.c [ ... ] > @@ -172,8 +184,14 @@ static void adjust_insn_aux_data(struct bpf_verifier= _env *env, > */ > data[off].zext_dst =3D insn_has_def32(insn + off + cnt - 1); > =20 > - if (cnt =3D=3D 1) > + if (cnt =3D=3D 1) { > + /* A non-memory accessing insn could have been replaced by a > + * memory accessing insn, systematically mark it for non-stack > + * access > + */ [Severity: Low] This isn't a bug, but does this multi-line comment in adjust_insn_aux_data() follow the preferred BPF subsystem comment style? The BPF guidelines require the opening /* to be on its own line for multi-line comments. > + data[off].non_stack_access =3D is_mem_insn(insn + off); > return; > + } > prog_len =3D new_prog->len; --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260709-kasan-v5-0= -1c64af8e4e1e@bootlin.com?part=3D2