BPF List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Masoud Aghasi" <maghasi@disroot.org>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] bpf: Fix incorrect handling of user flags by percpu map updates
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2026 10:41:36 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260928104137.2B9601F000FF@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260928102821.995214-2-maghasi@disroot.org>

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] bpf: bpf_percpu_array_update() misses validation for mutually exclusive flags
--

commit 41d85d3576867a24ad9b52f72cd4c1d7b23504a6
Author: Masoud Aghasi <maghasi@disroot.org>

bpf: Fix incorrect handling of user flags by percpu map updates

This commit fixes incorrect handling of BPF_EXIST, BPF_NOEXIST, BPF_F_CPU,
and BPF_F_ALL_CPUS flag combinations in BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_HASH and
BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_ARRAY map updates.

> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c b/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c
> index 0ce26b538075e..463f43b19e5cd 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c
> @@ -438,7 +438,7 @@ int bpf_percpu_array_update(struct bpf_map *map, void *key, void *value,
>  	u32 size;
>  	int cpu, off = 0;
>  
> -	if (unlikely((map_flags & BPF_F_LOCK) || (u32)map_flags > BPF_F_ALL_CPUS))
> +	if (unlikely((u32)map_flags & ~(BPF_EXIST | BPF_NOEXIST | BPF_F_CPU | BPF_F_ALL_CPUS)))
>  		/* unknown flags */
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> @@ -446,7 +446,7 @@ int bpf_percpu_array_update(struct bpf_map *map, void *key, void *value,
>  		/* all elements were pre-allocated, cannot insert a new one */
>  		return -E2BIG;
>  
> -	if (unlikely(map_flags == BPF_NOEXIST))
> +	if (unlikely(map_flags & BPF_NOEXIST))

[Severity: Low]
Does this validation correctly handle the case where both BPF_EXIST and
BPF_NOEXIST are passed together?

Since the mask check above allows this mutually exclusive combination through,
evaluating `map_flags & BPF_NOEXIST` as true here will return -EEXIST instead
of the expected -EINVAL error code. Should an explicit check for the 
combination of BPF_EXIST and BPF_NOEXIST be added here, similar to the one
added for hash maps in htab_map_check_update_flags() in this same patch?

>  		/* all elements already exist */
>  		return -EEXIST;

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260928102821.995214-1-maghasi@disroot.org?part=1

  reply	other threads:[~2026-09-28 10:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-09-28 10:28 [PATCH 0/2] bpf: Fix incorrect handling of user flags by percpu map updates Masoud Aghasi
2026-09-28 10:28 ` [PATCH 1/2] " Masoud Aghasi
2026-09-28 10:41   ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-09-28 12:53     ` Masoud Aghasi
2026-09-28 10:28 ` [PATCH 2/2] selftests/bpf: add test for percpu map flags combination Masoud Aghasi

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=20260928104137.2B9601F000FF@smtp.kernel.org \
    --to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=maghasi@disroot.org \
    --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