From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com (szxga02-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.188]) (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 E6F3B3FE7 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2025 01:32:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.188 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750728779; cv=none; b=ghldbURI8rkeBXsH39H/wcw3eDuSYH2UZKyvdqBOQqHlp4DqyjkNHnJHEfoKx0u58GMlBT3sH1sgP/1tZBcUAt58+5fsGDtENoPKRIG6Fp3HknWwhdhHqqIIOsYBbAqCnoYNorFFhDs10TuIPCDWVnkzobe+d/uy0xuD3Mf5mkg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750728779; c=relaxed/simple; bh=LiJ/T8AH9ysrj2kx6lJLyWv0vl1+nPd9U1UzRG+qTTw=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=SYpCoFMF6/fpYH4g3oxOJcxro7XPbSQax83DUoK5Dn2RXnQAptawD8bT9B/pGu2Md4ZKdwuhBrnrIiMtd56FaPZD6zZkApSwVxPdiz04faPVGbz0Na/+jSAU9W+KwPC4CGVtfq99+2J/kFD5Rhkv2eiyDLUpm20efzpoy+0x6/I= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.188 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.88.105]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4bR6qk1HCTztS3k; Tue, 24 Jun 2025 09:31:46 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemf100007.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.202.181.221]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E23E140258; Tue, 24 Jun 2025 09:32:55 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.67.109.184] (10.67.109.184) by kwepemf100007.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Tue, 24 Jun 2025 09:32:54 +0800 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 09:32:54 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Host panic in bpf verifier when loading bpf prog in 5.10 stable kernel To: Aaron Lu , Greg Kroah-Hartman CC: , Andrii Nakryiko , Alexei Starovoitov , Luiz Capitulino , Wei Wei , Yuchen Zhang References: <20250605070921.GA3795@bytedance> <20250616070617.GA66@bytedance> <2025062344-width-unvisited-a96f@gregkh> <20250623115552.GA294@bytedance> <2025062316-atrocious-hatchling-0cb9@gregkh> Content-Language: en-US From: Pu Lehui In-Reply-To: <2025062316-atrocious-hatchling-0cb9@gregkh> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: kwepems100001.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.238) To kwepemf100007.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.221) On 2025/6/23 20:03, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 07:55:52PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 10:17:15AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 03:06:17PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: >>>> Ping? >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 05, 2025 at 03:09:21PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> Wei reported when loading his bpf prog in 5.10.200 kernel, host would >>>>> panic, this didn't happen in 5.10.135 kernel. Test on latest v5.10.238 >>>>> still has this panic. >>>> >>>> If a fix is not easy for these stable kernels, I think we should revert >>>> this commit? Because for whatever bpf progs, the bpf verifier should not >>>> panic the kernel. >>>> >>>> Regarding revert, per my test, the following four commits in linux-5.10.y >>>> branch have to be reverted and after that, the kernel does not panic >>>> anymore: >>>> commit 2474ec58b96d("bpf: allow precision tracking for programs with subprogs") >>>> commit 7ca3e7459f4a("bpf: stop setting precise in current state") >>>> commit 1952a4d5e4cf("bpf: aggressively forget precise markings during >>>> state checkpointing") >>>> commit 4af2d9ddb7e7("selftests/bpf: make test_align selftest more >>>> robust") Hi Aaron, Greg, Sorry for the late. Just found a fix [0] for this issue, we don't need to revert this bugfix series. Hope that will help! Link: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf.git/commit/?id=4bb7ea946a37 [0] >>> >>> Can you send the reverts for this, so that you get credit for finding >>> and fixing this issue, and you can put the correct wording in the commit >>> messages for why they need to be reverted? >> >> No problem, thanks for the info. >> >> I have sent them: >> https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20250623115403.299-1-ziqianlu@bytedance.com/ > > All now queued up, thanks! > > greg k-h