linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 02/17] bpf: allow attaching struct

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87a4xx1sfe.fsf@linux.dev>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2026 10:52:05 -0800
From: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
To: Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org,  Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,  Alexei
 Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,  Matt Bobrowski <mattbobrowski@...gle.com>,
  Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>,  JP Kobryn
 <inwardvessel@...il.com>,  linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
  linux-mm@...ck.org,  Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,  Johannes
 Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,  Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 02/17] bpf: allow attaching struct_ops to
 cgroups

Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com> writes:

> Hi Roman,
>
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 6:50 PM Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev> wrote:
>>
>> Introduce an ability to attach bpf struct_ops'es to cgroups.
>>
> [snip]
>>  struct bpf_struct_ops_value {
>>         struct bpf_struct_ops_common_value common;
>> @@ -1220,6 +1222,10 @@ static void bpf_struct_ops_map_link_dealloc(struct bpf_link *link)
>>                 st_map->st_ops_desc->st_ops->unreg(&st_map->kvalue.data, link);
>>                 bpf_map_put(&st_map->map);
>>         }
>> +
>> +       if (st_link->cgroup)
>> +               cgroup_bpf_detach_struct_ops(st_link->cgroup, st_link);
>> +

Hi Josh!

>
> I was worried about concurrency with cgroup ops until I saw
> cgroup_bpf_detach_struct_ops() takes cgroup_lock() internally (since
> you take it inline sometimes below I falsely assumed it wasn't
> present). In any case, I'm wondering why you need to pass in the
> cgroup pointer to cgroup_bpf_detach_struct_ops() at all, rather than
> just the link?

Sure, good point.

>> @@ -1357,8 +1386,12 @@ int bpf_struct_ops_link_create(union bpf_attr *attr)
>>         struct bpf_link_primer link_primer;
>>         struct bpf_struct_ops_map *st_map;
>>         struct bpf_map *map;
>> +       struct cgroup *cgrp;
>>         int err;
>>
>> +       if (attr->link_create.flags & ~BPF_F_CGROUP_FD)
>> +               return -EINVAL;
>> +
>>         map = bpf_map_get(attr->link_create.map_fd);
>>         if (IS_ERR(map))
>>                 return PTR_ERR(map);
>> @@ -1378,11 +1411,26 @@ int bpf_struct_ops_link_create(union bpf_attr *attr)
>>         bpf_link_init(&link->link, BPF_LINK_TYPE_STRUCT_OPS, &bpf_struct_ops_map_lops, NULL,
>>                       attr->link_create.attach_type);
>>
>> +       init_waitqueue_head(&link->wait_hup);
>> +
>> +       if (attr->link_create.flags & BPF_F_CGROUP_FD) {
>> +               cgrp = cgroup_get_from_fd(attr->link_create.target_fd);
>> +               if (IS_ERR(cgrp)) {
>> +                       err = PTR_ERR(cgrp);
>> +                       goto err_out;
>> +               }
>> +               link->cgroup = cgrp;
>> +               err = cgroup_bpf_attach_struct_ops(cgrp, link);
>
> We have to be careful at this point. cgroup release could now occur
> concurrently which would clear link->cgroup. Maybe worth a comment
> here since this is a bit subtle.

Agree, will add.

Thanks!