From: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>
To: Amery Hung <ameryhung@gmail.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, 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,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-patches-bot@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf v3 3/4] bpf: Free special fields when update local storage maps
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2025 00:15:03 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <377791b5-2294-4ced-a0d3-918c7e078b2b@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMB2axPhcYctJYz0bH032-Kc1h2LcJL74O5iS5g=8Qp74GPK_g@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Amery,
On 2025/10/27 23:44, Amery Hung wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2025 at 8:41 AM Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev> wrote:
>>
>> When updating local storage maps with BPF_F_LOCK on the fast path, the
>> special fields were not freed after being replaced. This could cause
>> memory referenced by BPF_KPTR_{REF,PERCPU} fields to be held until the
>> map gets freed.
>>
>> Similarly, on the other path, the old sdata's special fields were never
>> freed regardless of whether BPF_F_LOCK was used, causing the same issue.
>>
>> Fix this by calling 'bpf_obj_free_fields()' after
>> 'copy_map_value_locked()' to properly release the old fields.
>>
>> Fixes: 9db44fdd8105 ("bpf: Support kptrs in local storage maps")
>> Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>
>> ---
>> kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c | 3 +++
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c
>> index b931fbceb54da..8e3aea4e07c50 100644
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c
>> @@ -609,6 +609,7 @@ bpf_local_storage_update(void *owner, struct bpf_local_storage_map *smap,
>> if (old_sdata && selem_linked_to_storage_lockless(SELEM(old_sdata))) {
>> copy_map_value_locked(&smap->map, old_sdata->data,
>> value, false);
>> + bpf_obj_free_fields(smap->map.record, old_sdata->data);
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> return old_sdata;
>> }
>> }
>> @@ -641,6 +642,7 @@ bpf_local_storage_update(void *owner, struct bpf_local_storage_map *smap,
>> if (old_sdata && (map_flags & BPF_F_LOCK)) {
>> copy_map_value_locked(&smap->map, old_sdata->data, value,
>> false);
>> + bpf_obj_free_fields(smap->map.record, old_sdata->data);
>
> The one above and this make sense. Thanks for fixing it.
>
Thanks for your review.
>> selem = SELEM(old_sdata);
>> goto unlock;
>> }
>> @@ -654,6 +656,7 @@ bpf_local_storage_update(void *owner, struct bpf_local_storage_map *smap,
>>
>> /* Third, remove old selem, SELEM(old_sdata) */
>> if (old_sdata) {
>> + bpf_obj_free_fields(smap->map.record, old_sdata->data);
>
> Is this really needed? bpf_selem_free_list() later should free special
> fields in this selem.
>
Yes, it’s needed. The new selftest confirms that the special fields are
not freed when updating a local storage map.
Also, bpf_selem_unlink_storage_nolock() doesn’t invoke
bpf_selem_free_list(), unlike bpf_selem_unlink_storage(). So we need to
call bpf_obj_free_fields() here explicitly to free those fields.
Thanks,
Leon
[...]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-27 16:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-26 15:39 [PATCH bpf v3 0/4] bpf: Free special fields when update hash and local storage maps Leon Hwang
2025-10-26 15:39 ` [PATCH bpf v3 1/4] bpf: Free special fields when update [lru_,]percpu_hash maps Leon Hwang
2025-10-28 18:03 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2025-10-26 15:39 ` [PATCH bpf v3 2/4] bpf: Free special fields when update hash maps with BPF_F_LOCK Leon Hwang
2025-10-26 15:39 ` [PATCH bpf v3 3/4] bpf: Free special fields when update local storage maps Leon Hwang
2025-10-27 15:44 ` Amery Hung
2025-10-27 16:15 ` Leon Hwang [this message]
2025-10-27 17:04 ` Amery Hung
2025-10-28 14:48 ` Leon Hwang
2025-10-28 18:03 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2025-10-26 15:40 ` [PATCH bpf v3 4/4] selftests/bpf: Add tests to verify freeing the special fields when update hash and " Leon Hwang
2025-10-27 16:34 ` Amery Hung
2025-10-29 14:58 ` Leon Hwang
2025-10-30 14:29 ` Leon Hwang
2025-10-28 18:10 ` [PATCH bpf v3 0/4] bpf: Free " patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
2025-10-28 20:22 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2025-10-29 6:49 ` Leon Hwang
2025-10-29 6:57 ` Menglong Dong
2025-10-29 16:38 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2025-10-30 5:37 ` 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=377791b5-2294-4ced-a0d3-918c7e078b2b@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