Re: [PATCH bpf-next v6 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add test to verify freeing the special fields when update [lru_,]percpu_hash maps

Yonghong Song
2025-11-11T21:58:38Z

On 11/11/25 5:52 AM, Leon Hwang wrote:
>
> On 2025/11/11 21:38, Leon Hwang wrote:
>>
>> On 2025/11/7 10:00, Yonghong Song wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/5/25 7:14 AM, Leon Hwang wrote:
>>>> Add test to verify that updating [lru_,]percpu_hash maps decrements
>>>> refcount when BPF_KPTR_REF objects are involved.
>>>>
>>>> The tests perform the following steps:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Call update_elem() to insert an initial value.
>>>> 2. Use bpf_refcount_acquire() to increment the refcount.
>>>> 3. Store the node pointer in the map value.
>>>> 4. Add the node to a linked list.
>>>> 5. Probe-read the refcount and verify it is *2*.
>>>> 6. Call update_elem() again to trigger refcount decrement.
>>>> 7. Probe-read the refcount and verify it is *1*.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>
>>> LGTM with a few nits below.
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
>>>
>> Hi Yonghong,
>>
>> Thanks for your review and ack.
>>
>>>> ---
>>>> .../bpf/prog_tests/refcounted_kptr.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++++
>>>> .../selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr.c | 60 +++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 2 files changed, 117 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/refcounted_kptr.c
>>>> b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/refcounted_kptr.c
>>>> index d6bd5e16e6372..086f679fa3f61 100644
>>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/refcounted_kptr.c
>>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/refcounted_kptr.c
>>>> @@ -44,3 +44,60 @@ void test_refcounted_kptr_wrong_owner(void)
>>>> ASSERT_OK(opts.retval, "rbtree_wrong_owner_remove_fail_a2 retval");
>>>> refcounted_kptr__destroy(skel);
>>>> }
>>>> +
>>>> +void test_percpu_hash_refcounted_kptr_refcount_leak(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct refcounted_kptr *skel;
>>>> + int cpu_nr, fd, err, key = 0;
>>>> + struct bpf_map *map;
>>>> + size_t values_sz;
>>>> + u64 *values;
>>>> + LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_test_run_opts, opts,
>>>> + .data_in = &pkt_v4,
>>>> + .data_size_in = sizeof(pkt_v4),
>>>> + .repeat = 1,
>>>> + );
>>>> +
>>>> + cpu_nr = libbpf_num_possible_cpus();
>>>> + if (!ASSERT_GT(cpu_nr, 0, "libbpf_num_possible_cpus"))
>>>> + return;
>>>> +
>>>> + values = calloc(cpu_nr, sizeof(u64));
>>>> + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(values, "calloc values"))
>>>> + return;
>>>> +
>>>> + skel = refcounted_kptr__open_and_load();
>>>> + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "refcounted_kptr__open_and_load")) {
>>>> + free(values);
>>>> + return;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + values_sz = cpu_nr * sizeof(u64);
>>>> + memset(values, 0, values_sz);
>>>> +
>>>> + map = skel->maps.percpu_hash;
>>>> + err = bpf_map__update_elem(map, &key, sizeof(key), values,
>>>> values_sz, 0);
>>>> + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "bpf_map__update_elem"))
>>>> + goto out;
>>>> +
>>>> + fd = bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.percpu_hash_refcount_leak);
>>>> + err = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(fd, &opts);
>>>> + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "bpf_prog_test_run_opts"))
>>>> + goto out;
>>>> + if (!ASSERT_EQ(opts.retval, 2, "opts.retval"))
>>>> + goto out;
>>>> +
>>>> + err = bpf_map__update_elem(map, &key, sizeof(key), values,
>>>> values_sz, 0);
>>>> + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "bpf_map__update_elem"))
>>>> + goto out;
>>>> +
>>>> + fd = bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.check_percpu_hash_refcount);
>>>> + err = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(fd, &opts);
>>>> + ASSERT_OK(err, "bpf_prog_test_run_opts");
>>>> + ASSERT_EQ(opts.retval, 1, "opts.retval");
>>>> +
>>>> +out:
>>>> + refcounted_kptr__destroy(skel);
>>>> + free(values);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>> Empty line here.
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr.c b/
>>>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr.c
>>>> index 893a4fdb4b6e9..1aca85d86aebc 100644
>>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr.c
>>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr.c
>>>> @@ -568,4 +568,64 @@ int
>>>> BPF_PROG(rbtree_sleepable_rcu_no_explicit_rcu_lock,
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>> +private(kptr_ref) u64 ref;
>>>> +
>>>> +static int probe_read_refcount(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> + u32 refcount;
>>>> +
>>>> + bpf_probe_read_kernel(&refcount, sizeof(refcount), (void *) ref);
>>>> + return refcount;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static int __insert_in_list(struct bpf_list_head *head, struct
>>>> bpf_spin_lock *lock,
>>>> + struct node_data __kptr **node)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct node_data *node_new, *node_ref, *node_old;
>>>> +
>>>> + node_new = bpf_obj_new(typeof(*node_new));
>>>> + if (!node_new)
>>>> + return -1;
>>>> +
>>>> + node_ref = bpf_refcount_acquire(node_new);
>>>> + node_old = bpf_kptr_xchg(node, node_new);
>>> Change the above to node_old = bpf_kptr_xchg(node, node_node_ref); might
>>> be better for reasoning although node_ref/node_new are the same.
>>>
>> Nope — node_ref and node_new are different for the verifier.
> They are the same in theory.
>
> The verifier failure was likely caused by something else, but I'm not
> sure of the exact reason.

I did some analysis and your code works as expected:

node_ref = bpf_refcount_acquire(node_new);
node_old = bpf_kptr_xchg(node, node_new);
if (node_old) {
bpf_obj_drop(node_old);
bpf_obj_drop(node_ref);
return -2;
}

bpf_spin_lock(lock);
bpf_list_push_front(head, &node_ref->l);
ref = (u64)(void *) &node_ref->ref;
bpf_spin_unlock(lock);

In the above, after the following insn:
node_old = bpf_kptr_xchg(node, node_new);
the second argument 'node_new' will become a scalar since it
may be changed by another bpf program accessing the same map.

So your code is okay as node_ref still valid ptr_node_data
and can be used in following codes.

My suggestion to replace
node_old = bpf_kptr_xchg(node, node_new);
with
node_old = bpf_kptr_xchg(node, node_ref);
will not work since node_ref will be a scalar
so subsequent bpf_obj_drop(node_ref) and bpf_list_push_front(...)
won't work.

In summary, your change look okay to me. Sorry for noise.

>
>> When trying node_old = bpf_kptr_xchg(node, node_ref), the verifier reported:
>>
>> [verifier log snipped for brevity...]
>> ; bpf_obj_drop(node_ref); @ refcounted_kptr.c:594
>> 26: (bf) r1 = r6 ; R1=scalar(id=7) R6=scalar(id=7)
>> refs=3
>> 27: (b7) r2 = 0 ; R2=0 refs=3
>> 28: (85) call bpf_obj_drop_impl#54490
>> R1 must be referenced or trusted
>> processed 27 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 0 total_states 2
>> peak_states 2 mark_read 0
>>
>> So the verifier rejected it because R6 became scalar(id=7) from
>> ptr_node_data(ref_obj_id=4).
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Hi Alexei, could you please drop the extra empty line when applying this
>> patch?
>>
>> Then I don't need to send another revision.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Leon
>>
>> [...]
>>