From: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: ast@kernel.org, andrii@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net,
martin.lau@linux.dev, eddyz87@gmail.com, song@kernel.org,
yonghong.song@linux.dev, john.fastabend@gmail.com,
kpsingh@kernel.org, sdf@fomichev.me, haoluo@google.com,
jolsa@kernel.org, memxor@gmail.com, ameryhung@gmail.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-patches-bot@fb.com,
Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v5 0/2] bpf: Free special fields when update [lru_,]percpu_hash maps
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2025 22:27:12 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20251104142714.99878-1-leon.hwang@linux.dev> (raw)
In the discussion thread
"[PATCH bpf-next v9 0/7] bpf: Introduce BPF_F_CPU and BPF_F_ALL_CPUS flags for percpu maps"[1],
it was pointed out that missing calls to bpf_obj_free_fields() could
lead to memory leaks.
A selftest was added to confirm that this is indeed a real issue - the
refcount of BPF_KPTR_REF field is not decremented when
bpf_obj_free_fields() is missing after copy_map_value[,_long]().
Further inspection of copy_map_value[,_long]() call sites revealed two
locations affected by this issue:
1. pcpu_copy_value()
2. htab_map_update_elem() when used with BPF_F_LOCK
Similar case happens when update local storage maps with BPF_F_LOCK.
This series fixes the cases where BPF_F_LOCK is not involved by
properly calling bpf_obj_free_fields() after copy_map_value[,_long](),
and adds a selftest to verify the fix.
The remaining cases involving BPF_F_LOCK will be addressed in a
separate patch set after the series
"bpf: Introduce BPF_F_CPU and BPF_F_ALL_CPUS flags for percpu maps"
is applied.
Changes:
v4 -> v5:
* Use a local variable to store the this_cpu_ptr()/per_cpu_ptr() result,
and reuse it between copy_map_value[,_long]() and
bpf_obj_free_fields() in patch #1 (per Andrii).
* Drop patch #2 and #3, because the combination of BPF_F_LOCK with other
special fields (except for BPF_SPIN_LOCK) will be disallowed on the
UAPI side in the future (per Alexei).
* v4: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20251030152451.62778-1-leon.hwang@linux.dev/
v3 -> v4:
* Target bpf-next tree.
* Address comments from Amery:
* Drop 'bpf_obj_free_fields()' in the path of updating local storage
maps without BPF_F_LOCK.
* Drop the corresponding self test.
* Respin the other test of local storage maps using syscall BPF
programs.
* v3: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20251026154000.34151-1-leon.hwang@linux.dev/
v2 -> v3:
* Free special fields when update local storage maps without BPF_F_LOCK.
* Add test to verify decrementing refcount when update cgroup local
storage maps without BPF_F_LOCK.
* Address review from AI bot:
* Slow path with BPF_F_LOCK (around line 642-646) in
'bpf_local_storage.c'.
* v2: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20251020164608.20536-1-leon.hwang@linux.dev/
v1 -> v2:
* Add test to verify decrementing refcount when update cgroup local
storage maps with BPF_F_LOCK.
* Address review from AI bot:
* Fast path without bucket lock (around line 610) in
'bpf_local_storage.c'.
* v1: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20251016145801.47552-1-leon.hwang@linux.dev/
Leon Hwang (2):
bpf: Free special fields when update [lru_,]percpu_hash maps
selftests/bpf: Add test to verify freeing the special fields when
update [lru_,]percpu_hash maps
kernel/bpf/hashtab.c | 10 +++-
.../bpf/prog_tests/refcounted_kptr.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++++
.../selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr.c | 60 +++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 125 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--
2.51.1
next reply other threads:[~2025-11-04 14:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-11-04 14:27 Leon Hwang [this message]
2025-11-04 14:27 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 1/2] bpf: Free special fields when update [lru_,]percpu_hash maps Leon Hwang
2025-11-04 14:27 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add test to verify freeing the " Leon Hwang
2025-11-04 14:52 ` bot+bpf-ci
2025-11-04 17:37 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2025-11-05 14:09 ` 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=20251104142714.99878-1-leon.hwang@linux.dev \
--to=leon.hwang@linux.dev \
--cc=ameryhung@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=haoluo@google.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-patches-bot@fb.com \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
--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