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 bpf v4 2/3] bpf: Fix incorrect handling of user flags by percpu hash map updates
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2026 12:10:05 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20261004111007.3216186-3-maghasi@disroot.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261004111007.3216186-1-maghasi@disroot.org>
For BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_HASH and BPF_MAP_TYPE_LRU_PERCPU_HASH maps,
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 in some cases.
For example, when using (BPF_F_CPU | BPF_EXIST) or
(BPF_F_CPU | BPF_NOEXIST) flag combinations with bpf_map_update_elem()
on a percpu hash map, the BPF_EXIST flag does not prevent new
insertions as expected and BPF_NOEXIST flag does not prevent
modification of existing entries as expected.
This patch fixes the bug by adding proper flag validations and checks.
Before this patch, htab_map_check_update_flags() rejected
(BPF_F_ALL_CPUS | BPF_EXIST) and (BPF_F_ALL_CPUS | BPF_NOEXIST) with
-EINVAL. After the patch those combinations are accepted.
This patch also starts returning -EINVAL for (BPF_EXIST | BPF_NOEXIST),
with or without BPF_F_CPU, which was previously accepted.
Fixes: c6936161fd55 ("bpf: Add BPF_F_CPU and BPF_F_ALL_CPUS flags support for percpu_hash and lru_percpu_hash maps")
Signed-off-by: Masoud Aghasi <maghasi@disroot.org>
---
kernel/bpf/hashtab.c | 11 +++++++----
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
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:[~2026-10-04 11:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-04 11:10 [PATCH bpf v4 0/3] bpf: Fix incorrect handling of user flags by percpu map updates Masoud Aghasi
2026-10-04 11:10 ` [PATCH bpf v4 1/3] bpf: Fix incorrect handling of user flags in bpf_percpu_array_update Masoud Aghasi
2026-10-05 3:10 ` Leon Hwang
2026-10-05 14:58 ` Masoud Aghasi
2026-10-04 11:10 ` Masoud Aghasi [this message]
2026-10-04 11:10 ` [PATCH bpf v4 3/3] selftests/bpf: add tests for percpu map flags combination Masoud Aghasi
2026-10-05 3:12 ` Leon Hwang
2026-10-05 15:19 ` Masoud Aghasi
2026-10-06 2:12 ` Leon Hwang
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=20261004111007.3216186-3-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