* [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Tighten cgroup storage cookie checks for prog arrays
@ 2026-06-10 10:55 Daniel Borkmann
2026-06-10 10:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: Cover tail-call cgroup storage prog-array checks Daniel Borkmann
2026-06-10 20:14 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Tighten cgroup storage cookie checks for prog arrays Yonghong Song
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Borkmann @ 2026-06-10 10:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bpf; +Cc: yonghong.song, malin89, ast
The fix in commit abad3d0bad72 ("bpf: Fix oob access in cgroup local
storage") is still incomplete. The prog-array compatibility check
treats a program with no cgroup storage as compatible with any stored
storage cookie. This allows a storage-less program to bridge a tail
call chain between an entry program and a storage-using callee even
though cgroup local storage at runtime still follows the caller's
context, that is, A -> B(no storage) -> C(storage) path.
Requiring exact cookie equality would break the legitimate case of a
storage-less leaf program being tail called from a storage-using one.
Instead, only accept a zero storage cookie if the program cannot
perform tail calls itself. This keeps A -> B(no storage) working
while rejecting the A -> B(no storage) -> C(storage) bridge.
Fixes: abad3d0bad72 ("bpf: Fix oob access in cgroup local storage")
Reported-by: Lin Ma <malin89@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
---
kernel/bpf/core.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
index a656a8572bdb..649cce41e13f 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
@@ -2481,7 +2481,7 @@ static bool __bpf_prog_map_compatible(struct bpf_map *map,
cookie = aux->cgroup_storage[i] ?
aux->cgroup_storage[i]->cookie : 0;
ret = map->owner->storage_cookie[i] == cookie ||
- !cookie;
+ (!cookie && !aux->tail_call_reachable);
}
if (ret &&
map->owner->attach_func_proto != aux->attach_func_proto) {
--
2.43.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: Cover tail-call cgroup storage prog-array checks
2026-06-10 10:55 [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Tighten cgroup storage cookie checks for prog arrays Daniel Borkmann
@ 2026-06-10 10:55 ` Daniel Borkmann
2026-06-10 20:15 ` Yonghong Song
2026-06-10 20:14 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Tighten cgroup storage cookie checks for prog arrays Yonghong Song
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Borkmann @ 2026-06-10 10:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bpf; +Cc: yonghong.song, malin89, ast, Rongzhen Cui, Jingguo Tan
From: Lin Ma <malin89@huawei.com>
Add tail-call selftests for prog-array ownership when cgroup storage
is in use. Verify that loading succeeds when callers and callees reuse
the owner's cgroup storage map, and that loading fails for a different
storage map and for the A(storage) -> B(no storage) -> C(storage)
bridge case addressed in the previous commit.
Also verify that a storage-less leaf program which cannot perform tail
calls itself is still allowed to join a storage-owned prog array, while
a storage-less tail-caller is rejected also at map update time.
# LDLIBS=-static PKG_CONFIG='pkg-config --static' ./vmtest.sh -- ./test_progs -t tailcalls
[...]
#475/25 tailcalls/tailcall_freplace:OK
#475/26 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_freplace:OK
#475/27 tailcalls/tailcall_failure:OK
#475/28 tailcalls/reject_tail_call_spin_lock:OK
#475/29 tailcalls/reject_tail_call_rcu_lock:OK
#475/30 tailcalls/reject_tail_call_preempt_lock:OK
#475/31 tailcalls/reject_tail_call_ref:OK
#475/32 tailcalls/tailcall_sleepable:OK
#475/33 tailcalls/tailcall_cgrp_storage:OK
#475/34 tailcalls/tailcall_cgrp_storage_diff_storage:OK
#475/35 tailcalls/tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage:OK
#475/36 tailcalls/tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage_leaf:OK
#475/37 tailcalls/tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage_bridge:OK
#475 tailcalls:OK
Summary: 1/37 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
Signed-off-by: Lin Ma <malin89@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Rongzhen Cui <cuirongzhen@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Jingguo Tan <tanjingguo@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
---
.../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c | 186 ++++++++++++++++++
.../bpf/progs/tailcall_cgrp_storage.c | 44 +++++
.../progs/tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage.c | 26 +++
.../bpf/progs/tailcall_cgrp_storage_owner.c | 32 +++
4 files changed, 288 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_cgrp_storage.c
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage.c
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_cgrp_storage_owner.c
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c
index 7d534fde0af9..a5a226d0104c 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c
@@ -8,6 +8,9 @@
#include "tailcall_freplace.skel.h"
#include "tc_bpf2bpf.skel.h"
#include "tailcall_fail.skel.h"
+#include "tailcall_cgrp_storage_owner.skel.h"
+#include "tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage.skel.h"
+#include "tailcall_cgrp_storage.skel.h"
#include "tailcall_sleepable.skel.h"
/* test_tailcall_1 checks basic functionality by patching multiple locations
@@ -1654,6 +1657,179 @@ static void test_tailcall_failure()
RUN_TESTS(tailcall_fail);
}
+static void test_tailcall_cgrp_storage(void)
+{
+ struct tailcall_cgrp_storage_owner *owner_skel = NULL;
+ struct tailcall_cgrp_storage *skel = NULL;
+ int err, key = 0, prog_array_fd, prog_fd, storage_map_fd;
+
+ owner_skel = tailcall_cgrp_storage_owner__open_and_load();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(owner_skel, "owner_open_and_load"))
+ return;
+
+ prog_array_fd = bpf_map__fd(owner_skel->maps.prog_array);
+ storage_map_fd = bpf_map__fd(owner_skel->maps.storage_map);
+
+ skel = tailcall_cgrp_storage__open();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "tailcall_cgrp_storage__open"))
+ goto out;
+
+ err = bpf_map__reuse_fd(skel->maps.prog_array, prog_array_fd);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "reuse_prog_array"))
+ goto out;
+
+ err = bpf_map__reuse_fd(skel->maps.storage_map, storage_map_fd);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "reuse_storage_map"))
+ goto out;
+
+ err = bpf_object__load(skel->obj);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "tailcall_cgrp_storage__load"))
+ goto out;
+
+ prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.callee_prog);
+ err = bpf_map_update_elem(prog_array_fd, &key, &prog_fd, BPF_ANY);
+ ASSERT_OK(err, "update_prog_array");
+out:
+ tailcall_cgrp_storage__destroy(skel);
+ tailcall_cgrp_storage_owner__destroy(owner_skel);
+}
+
+static void test_tailcall_cgrp_storage_diff_storage(void)
+{
+ struct tailcall_cgrp_storage_owner *owner_skel = NULL;
+ struct tailcall_cgrp_storage *skel = NULL;
+ int err, prog_array_fd;
+
+ owner_skel = tailcall_cgrp_storage_owner__open_and_load();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(owner_skel, "owner_open_and_load"))
+ return;
+
+ prog_array_fd = bpf_map__fd(owner_skel->maps.prog_array);
+
+ skel = tailcall_cgrp_storage__open();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "tailcall_cgrp_storage__open"))
+ goto out;
+
+ err = bpf_map__reuse_fd(skel->maps.prog_array, prog_array_fd);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "reuse_prog_array"))
+ goto out;
+
+ err = bpf_object__load(skel->obj);
+ ASSERT_ERR(err, "tailcall_cgrp_storage__load");
+out:
+ tailcall_cgrp_storage__destroy(skel);
+ tailcall_cgrp_storage_owner__destroy(owner_skel);
+}
+
+static void test_tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage(void)
+{
+ struct tailcall_cgrp_storage_owner *owner_skel = NULL;
+ struct tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage *skel = NULL;
+ int err, prog_array_fd;
+
+ owner_skel = tailcall_cgrp_storage_owner__open_and_load();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(owner_skel, "owner_open_and_load"))
+ return;
+
+ prog_array_fd = bpf_map__fd(owner_skel->maps.prog_array);
+
+ skel = tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage__open();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage__open"))
+ goto out;
+
+ err = bpf_map__reuse_fd(skel->maps.prog_array, prog_array_fd);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "reuse_prog_array"))
+ goto out;
+
+ err = bpf_object__load(skel->obj);
+ ASSERT_ERR(err, "tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage__load");
+out:
+ tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage__destroy(skel);
+ tailcall_cgrp_storage_owner__destroy(owner_skel);
+}
+
+static void test_tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage_leaf(void)
+{
+ struct tailcall_cgrp_storage_owner *owner_skel = NULL;
+ struct tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage *skel = NULL;
+ int err, key = 0, prog_array_fd, prog_fd;
+
+ owner_skel = tailcall_cgrp_storage_owner__open_and_load();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(owner_skel, "owner_open_and_load"))
+ return;
+
+ prog_array_fd = bpf_map__fd(owner_skel->maps.prog_array);
+
+ skel = tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage__open_and_load();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage__open_and_load"))
+ goto out;
+
+ prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.leaf_prog);
+ err = bpf_map_update_elem(prog_array_fd, &key, &prog_fd, BPF_ANY);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "update_prog_array_leaf"))
+ goto out;
+
+ prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.caller_prog);
+ err = bpf_map_update_elem(prog_array_fd, &key, &prog_fd, BPF_ANY);
+ ASSERT_ERR(err, "update_prog_array_bridge");
+out:
+ tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage__destroy(skel);
+ tailcall_cgrp_storage_owner__destroy(owner_skel);
+}
+
+static void test_tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage_bridge(void)
+{
+ struct tailcall_cgrp_storage_owner *owner_skel = NULL;
+ struct tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage *bridge_skel = NULL;
+ struct tailcall_cgrp_storage *callee_skel = NULL;
+ int err, key = 0, prog_array_fd, prog_fd, storage_map_fd;
+
+ owner_skel = tailcall_cgrp_storage_owner__open_and_load();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(owner_skel, "owner_open_and_load"))
+ return;
+
+ prog_array_fd = bpf_map__fd(owner_skel->maps.prog_array);
+ storage_map_fd = bpf_map__fd(owner_skel->maps.storage_map);
+
+ callee_skel = tailcall_cgrp_storage__open();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(callee_skel, "tailcall_cgrp_storage__open"))
+ goto out;
+
+ bpf_program__set_autoload(callee_skel->progs.caller_prog, false);
+
+ err = bpf_map__reuse_fd(callee_skel->maps.prog_array, prog_array_fd);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "reuse_prog_array"))
+ goto out;
+
+ err = bpf_map__reuse_fd(callee_skel->maps.storage_map, storage_map_fd);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "reuse_storage_map"))
+ goto out;
+
+ err = bpf_object__load(callee_skel->obj);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "tailcall_cgrp_storage__load"))
+ goto out;
+
+ prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(callee_skel->progs.callee_prog);
+ err = bpf_map_update_elem(prog_array_fd, &key, &prog_fd, BPF_ANY);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "update_prog_array"))
+ goto out;
+
+ bridge_skel = tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage__open();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(bridge_skel, "tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage__open"))
+ goto out;
+
+ err = bpf_map__reuse_fd(bridge_skel->maps.prog_array, prog_array_fd);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "reuse_prog_array"))
+ goto out;
+
+ err = bpf_object__load(bridge_skel->obj);
+ ASSERT_ERR(err, "tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage_bridge__load");
+out:
+ tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage__destroy(bridge_skel);
+ tailcall_cgrp_storage__destroy(callee_skel);
+ tailcall_cgrp_storage_owner__destroy(owner_skel);
+}
+
noinline void uprobe_sleepable_trigger(void)
{
asm volatile ("");
@@ -1781,4 +1957,14 @@ void test_tailcalls(void)
test_tailcall_failure();
if (test__start_subtest("tailcall_sleepable"))
test_tailcall_sleepable();
+ if (test__start_subtest("tailcall_cgrp_storage"))
+ test_tailcall_cgrp_storage();
+ if (test__start_subtest("tailcall_cgrp_storage_diff_storage"))
+ test_tailcall_cgrp_storage_diff_storage();
+ if (test__start_subtest("tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage"))
+ test_tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage();
+ if (test__start_subtest("tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage_leaf"))
+ test_tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage_leaf();
+ if (test__start_subtest("tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage_bridge"))
+ test_tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage_bridge();
}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_cgrp_storage.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_cgrp_storage.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..4dd3a0033d75
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_cgrp_storage.c
@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+#include <vmlinux.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
+
+struct {
+ __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_CGROUP_STORAGE);
+ __type(key, struct bpf_cgroup_storage_key);
+ __type(value, __u64);
+} storage_map SEC(".maps");
+
+struct {
+ __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_PROG_ARRAY);
+ __uint(max_entries, 1);
+ __uint(key_size, sizeof(__u32));
+ __uint(value_size, sizeof(__u32));
+} prog_array SEC(".maps");
+
+SEC("cgroup_skb/egress")
+int caller_prog(struct __sk_buff *skb)
+{
+ __u64 *storage;
+
+ storage = bpf_get_local_storage(&storage_map, 0);
+ if (storage)
+ *storage = 1;
+
+ bpf_tail_call(skb, &prog_array, 0);
+ return 1;
+}
+
+SEC("cgroup_skb/egress")
+int callee_prog(struct __sk_buff *skb)
+{
+ __u64 *storage;
+
+ storage = bpf_get_local_storage(&storage_map, 0);
+ if (storage)
+ *storage = 1;
+
+ return 1;
+}
+
+char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..5c69b0af6ff9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage.c
@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+#include <vmlinux.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
+
+struct {
+ __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_PROG_ARRAY);
+ __uint(max_entries, 1);
+ __uint(key_size, sizeof(__u32));
+ __uint(value_size, sizeof(__u32));
+} prog_array SEC(".maps");
+
+SEC("cgroup_skb/egress")
+int caller_prog(struct __sk_buff *skb)
+{
+ bpf_tail_call(skb, &prog_array, 0);
+ return 1;
+}
+
+SEC("cgroup_skb/egress")
+int leaf_prog(struct __sk_buff *skb)
+{
+ return 1;
+}
+
+char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_cgrp_storage_owner.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_cgrp_storage_owner.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..d7e8ec9855c5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_cgrp_storage_owner.c
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+#include <vmlinux.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
+
+struct {
+ __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_CGROUP_STORAGE);
+ __type(key, struct bpf_cgroup_storage_key);
+ __type(value, __u64);
+} storage_map SEC(".maps");
+
+struct {
+ __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_PROG_ARRAY);
+ __uint(max_entries, 1);
+ __uint(key_size, sizeof(__u32));
+ __uint(value_size, sizeof(__u32));
+} prog_array SEC(".maps");
+
+SEC("cgroup_skb/egress")
+int prog_array_owner(struct __sk_buff *skb)
+{
+ __u64 *storage;
+
+ storage = bpf_get_local_storage(&storage_map, 0);
+ if (storage)
+ *storage = 1;
+
+ bpf_tail_call(skb, &prog_array, 0);
+ return 1;
+}
+
+char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
--
2.43.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Tighten cgroup storage cookie checks for prog arrays
2026-06-10 10:55 [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Tighten cgroup storage cookie checks for prog arrays Daniel Borkmann
2026-06-10 10:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: Cover tail-call cgroup storage prog-array checks Daniel Borkmann
@ 2026-06-10 20:14 ` Yonghong Song
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Yonghong Song @ 2026-06-10 20:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Borkmann, bpf; +Cc: malin89, ast
On 6/10/26 3:55 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> The fix in commit abad3d0bad72 ("bpf: Fix oob access in cgroup local
> storage") is still incomplete. The prog-array compatibility check
> treats a program with no cgroup storage as compatible with any stored
> storage cookie. This allows a storage-less program to bridge a tail
> call chain between an entry program and a storage-using callee even
> though cgroup local storage at runtime still follows the caller's
> context, that is, A -> B(no storage) -> C(storage) path.
>
> Requiring exact cookie equality would break the legitimate case of a
> storage-less leaf program being tail called from a storage-using one.
> Instead, only accept a zero storage cookie if the program cannot
> perform tail calls itself. This keeps A -> B(no storage) working
> while rejecting the A -> B(no storage) -> C(storage) bridge.
>
> Fixes: abad3d0bad72 ("bpf: Fix oob access in cgroup local storage")
> Reported-by: Lin Ma <malin89@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: Cover tail-call cgroup storage prog-array checks
2026-06-10 10:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: Cover tail-call cgroup storage prog-array checks Daniel Borkmann
@ 2026-06-10 20:15 ` Yonghong Song
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Yonghong Song @ 2026-06-10 20:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Borkmann, bpf; +Cc: malin89, ast, Rongzhen Cui, Jingguo Tan
On 6/10/26 3:55 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> From: Lin Ma <malin89@huawei.com>
>
> Add tail-call selftests for prog-array ownership when cgroup storage
> is in use. Verify that loading succeeds when callers and callees reuse
> the owner's cgroup storage map, and that loading fails for a different
> storage map and for the A(storage) -> B(no storage) -> C(storage)
> bridge case addressed in the previous commit.
>
> Also verify that a storage-less leaf program which cannot perform tail
> calls itself is still allowed to join a storage-owned prog array, while
> a storage-less tail-caller is rejected also at map update time.
>
> # LDLIBS=-static PKG_CONFIG='pkg-config --static' ./vmtest.sh -- ./test_progs -t tailcalls
> [...]
> #475/25 tailcalls/tailcall_freplace:OK
> #475/26 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_freplace:OK
> #475/27 tailcalls/tailcall_failure:OK
> #475/28 tailcalls/reject_tail_call_spin_lock:OK
> #475/29 tailcalls/reject_tail_call_rcu_lock:OK
> #475/30 tailcalls/reject_tail_call_preempt_lock:OK
> #475/31 tailcalls/reject_tail_call_ref:OK
> #475/32 tailcalls/tailcall_sleepable:OK
> #475/33 tailcalls/tailcall_cgrp_storage:OK
> #475/34 tailcalls/tailcall_cgrp_storage_diff_storage:OK
> #475/35 tailcalls/tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage:OK
> #475/36 tailcalls/tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage_leaf:OK
> #475/37 tailcalls/tailcall_cgrp_storage_no_storage_bridge:OK
> #475 tailcalls:OK
> Summary: 1/37 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
>
> Signed-off-by: Lin Ma <malin89@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Rongzhen Cui <cuirongzhen@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jingguo Tan <tanjingguo@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-06-10 20:15 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2026-06-10 10:55 [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Tighten cgroup storage cookie checks for prog arrays Daniel Borkmann
2026-06-10 10:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: Cover tail-call cgroup storage prog-array checks Daniel Borkmann
2026-06-10 20:15 ` Yonghong Song
2026-06-10 20:14 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Tighten cgroup storage cookie checks for prog arrays Yonghong Song
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox