From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "David Windsor" <dwindsor@gmail.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: add BPF_F_SEALED flag to seal BPF links at creation
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2026 02:28:50 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260803022850.785B81F00ADF@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260803021643.2189641-1-dwindsor@gmail.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 3 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [High] The BPF_F_SEALED flag is applied via a file descriptor lookup after the FD has been exposed to user space, creating a TOCTOU race that allows cross-object sabotage and unauthorized link sealing.
- [High] The implementation of BPF_F_SEALED introduces a permanent memory leak, enabling a Denial of Service (DoS) via kernel resource exhaustion.
- [Medium] Concurrent executions of `link_seal_fd` on the same link can leak multiple self-references due to a missing atomic read-modify-write.
--
--- Patch [1]: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: add BPF_F_SEALED flag to seal BPF links at creation ---
commit f9d98fb378be461fdf9509562339b45a07b8d912
Author: David Windsor <dwindsor@gmail.com>
bpf: add BPF_F_SEALED flag to seal BPF links at creation
This commit introduces a new BPF_F_SEALED flag for BPF_LINK_CREATE that
creates a permanently sealed link. A sealed link cannot have its program
replaced, cannot be detached, and holds an extra self-reference so it
persists until reboot.
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> index 94091130bcc50..e8bd57d5c907a 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -5776,17 +5777,41 @@ static int bpf_map_do_batch(const union bpf_attr *attr,
> return err;
> }
>
> +/* Seal the just-created link: take a self-reference that is never released. */
> +static void link_seal_fd(int fd)
> +{
> + struct bpf_link *link;
> +
> + link = bpf_link_get_from_fd(fd);
> + if (IS_ERR(link))
> + return;
> +
> + if (!READ_ONCE(link->sealed)) {
[Severity: Medium]
Is this flag check safe against concurrent execution?
If the file descriptor is raced via dup2(), multiple threads might enter
link_seal_fd() for the same victim link concurrently. Since the READ_ONCE()
and WRITE_ONCE() are not atomic, could multiple threads observe false and
increment the link reference count multiple times?
> + bpf_link_inc(link);
> + WRITE_ONCE(link->sealed, true);
[Severity: High]
Does taking a self-reference here without any release path allow users to
exhaust kernel memory?
Since link_detach() explicitly returns -EPERM for sealed links, a user could
repeatedly create sealed links and close the fds, leaking the bpf_link and
bpf_prog indefinitely. Is there an administrative way to reclaim this memory?
> + }
> +
> + bpf_link_put_direct(link);
> +}
[ ... ]
> @@ -5880,6 +5905,9 @@ static int link_create(union bpf_attr *attr, bpfptr_t uattr)
> out:
> if (ret < 0)
> bpf_prog_put(prog);
> +out_seal:
> + if (ret >= 0 && seal)
> + link_seal_fd(ret);
[Severity: High]
Does looking up the link from the file descriptor here create a race
condition?
By the time link_create() reaches this point, attach functions called
earlier have already installed the fd into the process's file descriptor
table.
Could a concurrent thread use dup2() to overwrite this fd with one pointing
to a different victim bpf_link before link_seal_fd() executes? This would
cause the system to permanently seal the victim link instead of the newly
created one.
> return ret;
> }
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260803021643.2189641-1-dwindsor@gmail.com?part=1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-03 2:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-03 2:16 [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: add BPF_F_SEALED flag to seal BPF links at creation David Windsor
2026-08-03 2:20 ` David Windsor
2026-08-03 3:23 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-03 2:28 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-08-03 2:44 ` Leon Hwang
2026-08-03 3:17 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-03 3:26 ` David Windsor
2026-08-07 22:30 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2026-08-11 21:23 ` David Windsor
2026-08-03 3:18 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
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=20260803022850.785B81F00ADF@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dwindsor@gmail.com \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox