BPF List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi" <memxor@gmail.com>
To: "Ning Ding" <dingning04@gmail.com>, <bpf@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: <puranjay@kernel.org>, <paulmck@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/2] bpf: Track overlapping RCU protection
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2026 11:13:25 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <DKHQUVB5TV0R.1OLK7GG1APAOR@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260805233940.3966981-1-dingning04@gmail.com>

On Thu Aug 6, 2026 at 1:39 AM CEST, Ning Ding wrote:
> Preemption-disabled and IRQ-disabled regions provide RCU protection, but
> the verifier does not account for them. Current implementation can invalidate
> a task kptr while another RCU source remains active, or keep it valid
> after the final source ends.
>
> Track these regions and invalidate RCU-protected pointers only after the
> last protection ends. Add task kptr tests for overlapping protection and
> final-exit rejection.
>
> This follows review of the applied spin-unlock fix series [1].
>
> Tested in QEMU/KVM:
>   ./test_progs -t task_kfunc
>   ./test_progs -t preempt_lock
>   ./test_progs -t irq
>

Overall, looks good. There are various failures in CI, so you might need to
update or adjust existing selftests.

Make sure to include selftest changes for _existing_ tests within the kernel
commit making changes, so as to preserve bisection. Your extra tests should
still go in a separate commit.

Also, do we need that was_in_rcu_cs logic for bpf_spin_lock(). Would it be
possible to drop it and do it the same way you've done it for other cases?
If that makes sense, I would fold that cleanup in the first patch as well.

https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20260805233940.3966981-2-dingning04@gmail.com

pw-bot: cr

> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260803112615.3362122-1-dingning04@gmail.com
>
> Ning Ding (2):
>   bpf: Account for preempt and IRQ state in RCU protection
>   selftests/bpf: Test overlapping RCU protection
>
>  kernel/bpf/verifier.c                         |  13 +-
>  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/task_kfunc.c     |   6 +
>  .../selftests/bpf/progs/task_kfunc_common.h   |   2 +
>  .../selftests/bpf/progs/task_kfunc_failure.c  |  49 ++++++
>  .../selftests/bpf/progs/task_kfunc_success.c  | 147 ++++++++++++++++++
>  5 files changed, 214 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
>
> base-commit: 11c1e836710dcba03e50454a4eedfdbaf8d3050e


  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-08-06  9:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-08-05 23:39 [PATCH bpf-next 0/2] bpf: Track overlapping RCU protection Ning Ding
2026-08-05 23:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Account for preempt and IRQ state in " Ning Ding
2026-08-05 23:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: Test overlapping " Ning Ding
2026-08-06  9:13 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi [this message]
2026-08-06  9:32   ` [PATCH bpf-next 0/2] bpf: Track " Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-06 15:01     ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-06 21:13       ` Ning Ding

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=DKHQUVB5TV0R.1OLK7GG1APAOR@gmail.com \
    --to=memxor@gmail.com \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=dingning04@gmail.com \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=puranjay@kernel.org \
    /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