From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-189.mta1.migadu.com (out-189.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.189]) (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 7C59E386C39 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2026 20:43:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.189 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776717840; cv=none; b=nO1Z4y7jXbJ8NFSHDYahRAsmXWN4vUqbwjrDQa8r2lilb1gpmF/Lgq4bRIs1+mh9aVQZDz+TT/fvMWJxgaklLYqOcTNFqwPkkRfeZdL87vk+JWjX8jYapSsd94Uo/NEblObg+39P2Z2gdZHb/fehEIEvFvRiRhnapl+yAy7XdVM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776717840; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Bhe7pfgl/AFu6WLydL6w9J5N3ApXPzLXHG9nFzZ4fmY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=dpnbl5hyAw4C7tE/dFiD08U61r+ZNUF1FUZfTSFkQ9eWHuMyZraiimLLnkca1HBCeQonLSE3kDlnqKRJcxw7ZzhDNqRJsdEGm7qQyiapZTgeTg6FEFbGUvuTBsHksYqG96trd+VJJbGrYJAhzqvKvmz41iZaR/iyLRIsk1e0uVs= 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=X+xowDQe; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.189 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="X+xowDQe" Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:43:36 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1776717826; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=ihWIIczfSlnxjYYCRII7UJ70yxUYqdVRkPZC4QRKtXo=; b=X+xowDQe7i2RsriG3BR8r3i1s1dXQVN7OeBZeqF4YpX9aziNxjkGZv2I0i5dX/z7sLVTRY qbiNjbmWozQoFwhw82fHiRn/vZsm4CcckBZ1ilyB5jGUg+IXoFxkoMW7rkDyutUtUWnpIa /3WCpfYXqzkVUA7tfwfEtojl47bbgjA= X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Martin KaFai Lau To: Werner Kasselman Cc: "bpf@vger.kernel.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "andrii@kernel.org" , "ast@kernel.org" , "brakmo@fb.com" , "daniel@iogearbox.net" , "davem@davemloft.net" , "eddyz87@gmail.com" , "edumazet@google.com" , "haoluo@google.com" , "horms@kernel.org" , "john.fastabend@gmail.com" , "jolsa@kernel.org" , "kpsingh@kernel.org" , "kuba@kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org" , "pabeni@redhat.com" , "sdf@fomichev.me" , "shuah@kernel.org" , "song@kernel.org" , "yonghong.song@linux.dev" , "jiayuan.chen@linux.dev" , "stable@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] bpf: guard sock_ops rtt_min against non-locked tcp_sock Message-ID: <202642020410.q7GJ.martin.lau@linux.dev> References: <20260417023119.3830723-1-werner@verivus.com> <20260417023119.3830723-3-werner@verivus.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260417023119.3830723-3-werner@verivus.com> X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 02:31:26AM +0000, Werner Kasselman wrote: > diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c > index e8ad062f63bc..9c43193a5c39 100644 > --- a/net/core/filter.c > +++ b/net/core/filter.c > @@ -10827,14 +10827,12 @@ static u32 sock_ops_convert_ctx_access(enum bpf_access_type type, > sizeof(struct minmax)); > BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct minmax) < > sizeof(struct minmax_sample)); > + BUILD_BUG_ON(offsetof(struct tcp_sock, rtt_min) + > + offsetof(struct minmax_sample, v) > S16_MAX); This doesn't look like a test that is added by human. Will sizeof(tcp_sock) ever reach S16_MAX? It is unnecessarily defensive and inconsistent with other tcp_sock field loads. > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sock_ops_get_sk.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sock_ops_get_sk.c > index 343d92c4df30..1aea4c97d5d3 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sock_ops_get_sk.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sock_ops_get_sk.c Separate the test in its own patch. Also tag and add revision to subject, "[PATCH v3 bpf...]". Take a look at how other patches are posted in the bpf mailing list. pw-bot: cr