From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-183.mta1.migadu.com (out-183.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82A771E5B94 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2025 14:27:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.183 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762266459; cv=none; b=HCrYWgr5BxPbEZV4RPxmmlzNWjJXWcI5+D1HMzC55cJizQIM3R4fcj4zurwcPqLhHgBNZbEed/mdZf5W05IjoAS/UTZwfTu8G6O5bJtd1yZrTBcOT2Svtr4oCwbjXSEPXgk9ri77kR1Guqwe2n6YG4FK2Zok9HyATMd1ccLgBy4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762266459; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fv6tcX/Yqq5n+97+2noZLlMegWira1m4kod/pRAqBak=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=ALpAB0hhp2FU9E0OEW6+J66YN3yjuPYnid5G/xxrLUvqxTA6+AjUVFQuJ7d4pFUNmuzuVEBjLPsI6VPX+Z4JPBqGOrHkzAm/th0aazeMjELNc/IPUSQc0Cijuymadt6J5SPdyxuEXvE6ucGXpyEboaEcpiB8807Z8ByeYnAdFMU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=jELe/4EM; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.183 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="jELe/4EM" X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1762266454; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rW5yTOW3PQ7ihS8kw2UZ5037nTZlPgHoxIc9NxKBrzQ=; b=jELe/4EMRIREJyhzXe2g0G8vVHlkZHAsyWIoJY2qMjyu8Ywxjq1W8pR2xNjoX4aSP2wuRO 4pN1ygDl/nqKGX9B/3ZLNREL16hs+3a74FdJxoXJdDCKJhS8ObJbFRBOP1y+XvSIV320Do /c15oG1fKi5iKyvikWATCiPfRSL3/yI= From: Leon Hwang 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 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 Message-ID: <20251104142714.99878-1-leon.hwang@linux.dev> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT 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