From: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>
To: bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org,
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, shuah@kernel.org, yangfeng@kylinos.cn,
menglong8.dong@gmail.com, puranjay@kernel.org, bjorn@kernel.org,
pulehui@huawei.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-patches-bot@fb.com, martin.lau@kernel.org, clm@meta.com,
ihor.solodrai@linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/6] bpf: Disallow !kprobe_write_ctx progs tail-calling kprobe_write_ctx progs
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2026 09:44:54 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6d7b89fc-994b-41c8-b545-630d4e2f884f@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d1728faa022db83c9e5ab0245579eb1b1d176495744953f9ab66e0864ed31025@mail.kernel.org>
On 2/3/26 23:53, bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org wrote:
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> +enum bpf_map_owner_match_type {
>> + BPF_MAP_OWNER_MATCH_FOR_INIT,
>> + BPF_MAP_OWNER_MATCH_FOR_UPDATE,
>> +};
>> +
>> static bool bpf_map_owner_matches(const struct bpf_map *map, const struct bpf_prog *fp,
>> - enum bpf_prog_type prog_type)
>> + enum bpf_prog_type prog_type,
>> + enum bpf_map_owner_match_type match)
>> {
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> + switch (match) {
>> + case BPF_MAP_OWNER_MATCH_FOR_INIT:
>> + if (owner->kprobe_write_ctx != aux->kprobe_write_ctx)
>> + return false;
>> + break;
>> +
>> + case BPF_MAP_OWNER_MATCH_FOR_UPDATE:
>> + if (!owner->kprobe_write_ctx && aux->kprobe_write_ctx)
>> + return false;
>> + break;
>> + }
>
> In the v1 review, Alexei Starovoitov asked for strict conformance
> both ways rather than one-directional validation:
>
> "Don't be fancy. Require strict conformance both ways
> in *all* patches."
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAADnVQ+-V0-1i8_+CYpK7G0CnV-2n8e9Szv43yM3Az197eL_0A@mail.gmail.com/
>
> The BPF_MAP_OWNER_MATCH_FOR_UPDATE case still uses one-directional
> matching, rejecting only !owner->kprobe_write_ctx && aux->kprobe_write_ctx
> but allowing the reverse. The v2 changelog lists other Alexei comments
> as addressed but does not mention this one.
>
> Was this an intentional design choice, and if so, should the changelog
> note the disagreement?
>
This was intentional design choice.
My explanation in v1 should address his concern.
As his disagreement was not part of the patch series, should I note it
in changelog?
Thanks,
Leon
>
> ---
> AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
> See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md
>
> CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/22582690876
>
> AI-authorship-score: medium
> AI-authorship-explanation: Confirmed LLM involvement in v1 development process (selftests called out by reviewer), but core code changes and v2 revisions appear human-authored with genuine design engagement.
> issues-found: 1
> issue-severity-score: low
> issue-severity-explanation: Unaddressed maintainer review comment requesting symmetric matching in the UPDATE path; not a code bug or security concern.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-03 1:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-02 15:03 [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/6] bpf: Enhance __bpf_prog_map_compatible() Leon Hwang
2026-03-02 15:03 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/6] bpf: Add fsession to verbose log in check_get_func_ip() Leon Hwang
2026-03-02 15:03 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/6] bpf: Factor out bpf_map_owner_[init,matches]() helpers Leon Hwang
2026-03-02 15:03 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/6] bpf: Disallow !kprobe_write_ctx progs tail-calling kprobe_write_ctx progs Leon Hwang
2026-03-02 15:53 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-03-03 1:44 ` Leon Hwang [this message]
2026-03-02 15:03 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 4/6] bpf: Disallow !call_get_func_ip progs tail-calling call_get_func_ip progs Leon Hwang
2026-03-02 15:53 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-03-03 1:47 ` Leon Hwang
2026-03-02 15:03 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 5/6] bpf: Disallow !call_session_cookie progs tail-calling call_session_cookie progs Leon Hwang
2026-03-02 15:03 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 6/6] selftests/bpf: Add tests to verify prog_array map compatibility 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=6d7b89fc-994b-41c8-b545-630d4e2f884f@linux.dev \
--to=leon.hwang@linux.dev \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bjorn@kernel.org \
--cc=bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=clm@meta.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=haoluo@google.com \
--cc=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
--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=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=menglong8.dong@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pulehui@huawei.com \
--cc=puranjay@kernel.org \
--cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=yangfeng@kylinos.cn \
--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