From: Masoud Aghasi <maghasi@disroot.org>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: andrii@kernel.org, eddyz87@gmail.com, ast@kernel.org,
daniel@iogearbox.net, memxor@gmail.com, martin.lau@linux.dev,
song@kernel.org, yonghong.song@linux.dev, jolsa@kernel.org,
emil@etsalapatis.com, ihor.solodrai@linux.dev,
leon.hwang@linux.dev, Masoud Aghasi <maghasi@disroot.org>
Subject: [PATCH v2 1/2] bpf: Fix incorrect handling of user flags by percpu map updates
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2026 14:57:52 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260930135753.1063495-2-maghasi@disroot.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260930135753.1063495-1-maghasi@disroot.org>
For BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_HASH map, htab_map_check_update_flags() and
check_flags() are not considering the possibility of a combination of
(BPF_NOEXIST, BPF_EXIST) flags with (BPF_F_CPU, BPF_F_ALL_CPUS) flags.
This causes the (BPF_NOEXIST, BPF_EXIST) flags to lose their effect.
For example, when using (BPF_F_CPU | BPF_EXIST) flag combination
with bpf_map_update_elem() on a BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_HASH map, the
BPF_EXIST flag does not prevent new insertions as expected.
Also for BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_ARRAY map, using the (BPF_F_ALL_CPUS |
BPF_EXIST) flag combination with bpf_map_update_elem() results in an
incorrect EINVAL error response, even though the flag combination is
valid.
This patch fixes the bug by adding proper flag validations and checks.
Fixes: c6936161fd55 ("bpf: Add BPF_F_CPU and BPF_F_ALL_CPUS flags support for percpu_hash and lru_percpu_hash maps")
Fixes: 8eb76cb03f0f ("bpf: Add BPF_F_CPU and BPF_F_ALL_CPUS flags support for percpu_array maps")
Signed-off-by: Masoud Aghasi <maghasi@disroot.org>
---
kernel/bpf/arraymap.c | 5 +++--
kernel/bpf/hashtab.c | 11 +++++++----
2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c b/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c
index 0fe9afd4a591..4edfde6a624c 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c
@@ -438,7 +438,8 @@ 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((map_flags & BPF_EXIST) && (map_flags & BPF_NOEXIST)) ||
+ unlikely((u32)map_flags & ~(BPF_EXIST | BPF_NOEXIST | BPF_F_CPU | BPF_F_ALL_CPUS)))
/* unknown flags */
return -EINVAL;
@@ -446,7 +447,7 @@ 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))
/* all elements already exist */
return -EEXIST;
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c b/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
index 53c99fe4f176..2106b82894b2 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
@@ -1196,11 +1196,11 @@ static struct htab_elem *alloc_htab_elem(struct bpf_htab *htab, void *key,
static int check_flags(struct bpf_htab *htab, struct htab_elem *l_old,
u64 map_flags)
{
- if (l_old && (map_flags & ~BPF_F_LOCK) == BPF_NOEXIST)
+ if (l_old && (map_flags & BPF_NOEXIST))
/* elem already exists */
return -EEXIST;
- if (!l_old && (map_flags & ~BPF_F_LOCK) == BPF_EXIST)
+ if (!l_old && (map_flags & BPF_EXIST))
/* elem doesn't exist, cannot update it */
return -ENOENT;
@@ -1383,9 +1383,12 @@ static long htab_lru_map_update_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key, void *value
static int htab_map_check_update_flags(bool onallcpus, u64 map_flags)
{
+ if (unlikely((map_flags & BPF_EXIST) && (map_flags & BPF_NOEXIST)))
+ return -EINVAL;
if (unlikely(!onallcpus && map_flags > BPF_EXIST))
return -EINVAL;
- if (unlikely(onallcpus && ((map_flags & BPF_F_LOCK) || (u32)map_flags > BPF_F_ALL_CPUS)))
+ if (unlikely(onallcpus &&
+ ((u32)map_flags & ~(BPF_EXIST | BPF_NOEXIST | BPF_F_CPU | BPF_F_ALL_CPUS))))
return -EINVAL;
return 0;
}
@@ -1483,7 +1486,7 @@ static long __htab_lru_percpu_map_update_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key,
* to remove older elem from htab and this removal
* operation will need a bucket lock.
*/
- if (map_flags != BPF_EXIST) {
+ if (!(map_flags & BPF_EXIST)) {
l_new = prealloc_lru_pop(htab, key, hash);
if (!l_new)
return -ENOMEM;
--
2.47.3
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-30 13:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-30 13:57 [PATCH v2 0/2] bpf: Fix incorrect handling of user flags by percpu map updates Masoud Aghasi
2026-09-30 13:57 ` Masoud Aghasi [this message]
2026-10-01 15:16 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] " Leon Hwang
2026-10-02 5:34 ` Masoud Aghasi
2026-09-30 13:57 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] selftests/bpf: add test for percpu map flags combination Masoud Aghasi
2026-09-30 14:42 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-10-01 15:17 ` Leon Hwang
2026-10-02 5:36 ` Masoud Aghasi
2026-10-01 15:37 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-10-02 5:45 ` 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=20260930135753.1063495-2-maghasi@disroot.org \
--to=maghasi@disroot.org \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=emil@etsalapatis.com \
--cc=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=leon.hwang@linux.dev \
--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