From: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@kernel.org>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@kernel.org>,
"Alexei Starovoitov" <ast@kernel.org>,
"Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
"Andrii Nakryiko" <andrii@kernel.org>,
"Martin KaFai Lau" <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
"Eduard Zingerman" <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
"Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi" <memxor@gmail.com>,
"Song Liu" <song@kernel.org>,
"Yonghong Song" <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next 0/2] bpf: Fix loop detection for re-arming async callbacks
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2026 07:01:48 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260923140152.4005097-1-puranjay@kernel.org> (raw)
is_state_visited() skips the infinite loop check when two states differ in
async_entry_cnt, since seeing the same state on a second entry into an
async callback is not a loop. It reads that from the innermost frame, but
push_async_cb() sets in_async_callback_fn and async_entry_cnt on the
callback's own frame, and setup_func_entry() copies neither, so a subprog
called by the callback carries neither.
A callback which re-arms itself and calls a subprog therefore has its two
entries compared at a loop inside that subprog, and is rejected:
infinite loop detected at insn 57
Patch 1 reads both from frame 0, which push_async_cb() makes the callback's
frame at any call depth.
Patch 2 covers both directions: a timer callback which re-arms through
bpf_timer_set_callback() and reaches a bounded loop through a static
subprog, which fails to load without patch 1, and a callback which never
returns, which must still be rejected either way. Nothing covered an async
callback before, so neither direction was tested.
Puranjay Mohan (2):
bpf: Look at frame 0 when telling async callback entries apart
selftests/bpf: Add timer tests for a re-arming callback with a loop
kernel/bpf/states.c | 4 +-
.../testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/timer.c | 33 ++++++++++++
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/timer.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++-
.../selftests/bpf/progs/timer_failure.c | 29 +++++++++++
4 files changed, 113 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
base-commit: 91f8613d95ad8cd99d8baf094806d1ef98bc6380
--
2.53.0-Meta
next reply other threads:[~2026-09-23 14:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-23 14:01 Puranjay Mohan [this message]
2026-09-23 14:01 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Look at frame 0 when telling async callback entries apart Puranjay Mohan
2026-09-24 5:56 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-23 14:01 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add timer tests for a re-arming callback with a loop Puranjay Mohan
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=20260923140152.4005097-1-puranjay@kernel.org \
--to=puranjay@kernel.org \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox