From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
To: Amery Hung <ameryhung@gmail.com>
Cc: bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com,
andrii@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, memxor@gmail.com,
martin.lau@kernel.org, mykyta.yatsenko5@gmail.com,
kernel-team@meta.com, ast@kernel.org, yonghong.song@linux.dev,
clm@meta.com, ihor.solodrai@linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 2/3] bpf: Compare parent_id in refsafe() for REF_TYPE_PTR
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2026 11:04:44 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6d86c2fae9be63eb110ebd5b3fc19bc4cf1de2dc.camel@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMB2axOOG3ptDkWvTDpGut+EmDeroe3GPR3obb-Br_Dg1aGmgw@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, 2026-06-05 at 10:57 -0700, Amery Hung wrote:
[...]
> Actually, looking at it a bit more. I think I would hold on changing
> check_ids().
>
> This patch should not increase idmap usage. parent_id refers to id and
> therefore check_ids(parent_id) will reuse an existing slot.
>
> The id_map is indeed more likely to be triggered since there is also
> an intermediate reference for reference dynptr introduce during the
> refactor, but that should still be very unlikely under normal usage.
> check_ids() also already fails in this scenario by returning false. So
> overall, I am not sure if we need to change it.
>
> WDYT?
I agree that it should be fine to just return false from check_ids()
if there is no space in the idmap. However, since not all ids
correspond to register/stack slots anymore, I think that
WARN_ON_ONCE(1) should be removed.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-05 18:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-04 22:09 [PATCH bpf-next v1 0/3] Object relationship refactor followup Amery Hung
2026-06-04 22:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 1/3] bpf: Fix dead error check on acquire_reference() in check_kfunc_call Amery Hung
2026-06-04 22:43 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-06-04 23:16 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-06-04 22:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 2/3] bpf: Compare parent_id in refsafe() for REF_TYPE_PTR Amery Hung
2026-06-04 22:59 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-06-04 23:21 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-06-04 23:27 ` Amery Hung
2026-06-05 17:57 ` Amery Hung
2026-06-05 18:04 ` Eduard Zingerman [this message]
2026-06-05 18:09 ` Amery Hung
2026-06-04 22:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 3/3] selftests/bpf: Use bpf_dynptr_slice() to read file dynptr in leak test Amery Hung
2026-06-04 23:22 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-06-04 22:14 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 0/3] Object relationship refactor followup Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-06-04 23:20 ` Amery Hung
2026-06-05 21:20 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
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=6d86c2fae9be63eb110ebd5b3fc19bc4cf1de2dc.camel@gmail.com \
--to=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=ameryhung@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=clm@meta.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=mykyta.yatsenko5@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.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