[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1945050.tdWV9SEqCh@7940hx>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2026 15:50:16 +0800
From: Menglong Dong <menglong.dong@...ux.dev>
To: menglong8.dong@...il.com, ast@...nel.org, andrii@...nel.org,
bot+bpf-ci@...nel.org
Cc: daniel@...earbox.net, martin.lau@...ux.dev, eddyz87@...il.com,
song@...nel.org, yonghong.song@...ux.dev, john.fastabend@...il.com,
kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...ichev.me, haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
davem@...emloft.net, dsahern@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, jiang.biao@...ux.dev, bp@...en8.de,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ast@...nel.org, andrii@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
martin.lau@...nel.org, eddyz87@...il.com, yonghong.song@...ux.dev,
clm@...a.com, ihor.solodrai@...ux.dev
Subject:
Re: [PATCH bpf-next v7 02/11] bpf: use last 8-bits for the nr_args in
trampoline
On 2026/1/7 15:11 bot+bpf-ci@...nel.org write:
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > index 6e076485bf70..6b58f9a4dc92 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > @@ -1194,7 +1194,7 @@ const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_get_branch_snapshot_proto = {
> > BPF_CALL_3(get_func_arg, void *, ctx, u32, n, u64 *, value)
> > {
> > /* This helper call is inlined by verifier. */
> > - u64 nr_args = ((u64 *)ctx)[-1];
> > + u64 nr_args = ((u64 *)ctx)[-1] & 0xFF;
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > @@ -1214,7 +1214,7 @@ static const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_get_func_arg_proto = {
> > BPF_CALL_2(get_func_ret, void *, ctx, u64 *, value)
> > {
> > /* This helper call is inlined by verifier. */
> > - u64 nr_args = ((u64 *)ctx)[-1];
> > + u64 nr_args = ((u64 *)ctx)[-1] & 0xFF;
> >
> > *value = ((u64 *)ctx)[nr_args];
> > return 0;
>
> Both get_func_arg() and get_func_ret() are updated with the 0xFF mask, but
> should get_func_arg_cnt() also receive the same treatment?
>
> Current code in get_func_arg_cnt():
>
> BPF_CALL_1(get_func_arg_cnt, void *, ctx)
> {
> /* This helper call is inlined by verifier. */
> return ((u64 *)ctx)[-1];
> }
>
> The comment says "inlined by verifier", but the verifier only inlines this
> helper for BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING programs. For BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM programs
> with BPF_LSM_MAC attachment type, bpf_prog_has_trampoline() returns true,
> allowing access to this helper via tracing_prog_func_proto(). However,
> do_misc_fixups() only inlines for BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING, so LSM programs
> would call this non-inlined fallback function.
>
> If subsequent patches store metadata in the upper bits of ctx[-1], could
> LSM programs calling bpf_get_func_arg_cnt() receive incorrect values?
>
> Later commits in this series (93d4641b9513 "bpf,x86: add fsession support
> for x86_64") do use the upper bits for BPF_TRAMP_M_IS_RETURN and
> BPF_TRAMP_M_COOKIE flags. This regression is not fixed in the series.
Ah, good point. I missed the modification of get_func_arg_cnt(). It should
be:
BPF_CALL_1(get_func_arg_cnt, void *, ctx)
{
/* This helper call is inlined by verifier. */
return ((u64 *)ctx)[-1] & 0XFF;
}
I'll fix it in the next version.
Thanks!
Menglong Dong
>
>
> ---
> 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/20773233136
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists