From: "Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi" <memxor@gmail.com>
To: <bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org>, <bpf@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: <ast@kernel.org>, <andrii@kernel.org>, <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
<eddyz87@gmail.com>, <emil@etsalapatis.com>, <tj@kernel.org>,
<kkd@meta.com>, <kernel-team@meta.com>, <martin.lau@kernel.org>,
<yonghong.song@linux.dev>, <mason@kernel.org>,
<ihor.solodrai@linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 08/18] bpf: Grow the verifier id scratch on demand
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2026 11:55:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <DLNGFZ3CTNOY.VXQBGFNVON3D@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <137d352e6b635833e3e69d9ef6215e7674b239c05ae0a7a0efb0e6b492669696@mail.kernel.org>
On Thu Sep 24, 2026 at 11:13 AM CEST, bot+bpf-ci wrote:
>> diff --git a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
>> index b314b9425b86..3ff1d4f753d3 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> index 8b7f2c283e5a..aebe2e6b2a3d 100644
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> @@ -18898,12 +18903,13 @@ static void idset_cnt_inc(struct bpf_idset *idset, u32 id)
>> return;
>> }
>> }
>> - /* New id */
>> - if (idset->num_ids < BPF_ID_MAP_SIZE) {
>> - idset->entries[idset->num_ids].id = id;
>> - idset->entries[idset->num_ids].cnt = 1;
>> - idset->num_ids++;
>> - }
>> + /* New id; one that cannot be recorded counts as shared and is kept */
>> + if (!bpf_id_scratch_reserve((void **)&idset->entries, &idset->cap, idset->num_ids,
>> + sizeof(*idset->entries)))
>> + return;
>> + idset->entries[idset->num_ids].id = id;
>> + idset->entries[idset->num_ids].cnt = 1;
>> + idset->num_ids++;
>> }
>
> The comment says "one that cannot be recorded counts as shared and is kept".
> With the old fixed array, once num_ids reached BPF_ID_MAP_SIZE, that was
> permanent -- every subsequent new id failed to be recorded. But
> krealloc_array() failure is transient, and bpf_id_scratch_reserve() leaves
> cap unchanged after a failure, so the next call retries the same allocation
> and can succeed.
>
> Consider a scalar id X held by exactly two registers, with num_ids == cap
> when X first appears in the idset_cnt_inc() pass of bpf_clear_singular_ids():
>
> 1st occurrence of X: reserve fails -> X not recorded
> (a later new id Y: reserve succeeds -> cap doubles)
> 2nd occurrence of X: not found -> reserve succeeds -> entries[] = {X, cnt = 1}
>
> X now has cnt == 1 even though two registers share it. The second pass then
> runs clear_scalar_id() on both registers. This is sound, because the cleared
> state is cur, which keeps being explored, and forgetting a relation only
> widens the abstraction.
>
> It does silently drop a real scalar link, though: sync_linked_regs() no
> longer refines the second register, so a valid program can be rejected with
> an ordinary verifier error instead of failing with -ENOMEM. The outcome also
> depends on allocation timing.
>
> Would it be better to remember that a reservation failed during this pass
> (for example a flag in struct bpf_idset) and then skip the clearing pass
> entirely? That would make "is kept" true in every case.
>
Fixed for v3: when the id set cannot record an id its counts are incomplete, so
bpf_clear_singular_ids() now keeps every id instead of clearing any.
>
> ---
> AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
> See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md
>
> CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/35976322553
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-24 9:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-24 8:25 [PATCH bpf-next v2 00/18] Raise BPF program stack size to 2KiB Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-24 8:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 01/18] bpf: Add accessors for verifier stack slots Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-24 8:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 02/18] bpf: Widen the stack slot index in the jump history Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-24 8:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 03/18] bpf: Store linked registers in the jump history as an array Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-24 8:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 04/18] bpf: Track backtracking stack slots with bitmaps Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-24 8:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 05/18] bpf: Track scratched stack slots with a bitmap Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-24 8:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 06/18] bpf: Treat unknown-size stack reads as reaching the frame top Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-24 8:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 07/18] bpf: Size liveness stack masks by the stack each frame uses Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-24 15:12 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-24 8:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 08/18] bpf: Grow the verifier id scratch on demand Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-24 9:13 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-24 9:55 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi [this message]
2026-09-24 8:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 09/18] selftests/bpf: Cover the tail call caller stack depth limit Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-24 8:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 10/18] selftests/bpf: Check that narrow stack stores define no slot Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-24 8:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 11/18] selftests/bpf: Check liveness merge of masks with different widths Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-24 8:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 12/18] bpf: Size the per-frame verifier structures for a 2 KiB stack Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-24 9:13 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-24 9:56 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-24 8:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 13/18] bpf: Bound program stack use by a per-program limit Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-24 9:13 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-24 9:56 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-24 8:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 14/18] selftests/bpf: Add load conditions on the program stack limit Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-24 8:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 15/18] selftests/bpf: Give the 512-byte stack boundary tests a 2 KiB twin Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-24 9:13 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-24 9:56 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-24 8:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 16/18] bpf, x86: Allow programs 2 KiB of stack Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-24 9:13 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-24 9:57 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-24 8:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 17/18] bpf, arm64: " Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-24 9:00 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-24 9:57 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-24 8:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 18/18] selftests/bpf: Test the 2 KiB stack budget Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-24 9:13 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-24 9:58 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
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=DLNGFZ3CTNOY.VXQBGFNVON3D@gmail.com \
--to=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bot+bpf-ci@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=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=kkd@meta.com \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
--cc=mason@kernel.org \
--cc=tj@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