netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/4] bpf: tailcall: Eliminate max_entries and bpf

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <CAADnVQLHVogD1mjMCsHcJOayuZW4OwadEN0g9wu=6d97uRSWqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2026 13:56:11 -0800
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>
Cc: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@...ux.dev>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, 
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, 
	Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, 
	Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, 
	KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, 
	Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@...nel.org>, Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...weicloud.com>, 
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, 
	"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, 
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, 
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, 
	"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-patches-bot@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/4] bpf: tailcall: Eliminate max_entries and
 bpf_func access at runtime

On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 1:00 PM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > > fyi I briefly discussed that with Andrii indicating that it might not
> > > be worth the effort at this stage.
> >
> > depending on complexity of course.
>
> for my tests I just had to allow BPF_MAP_TYPE_PROG_ARRAY map
> for sleepable programs
>
> jirka
>
>
> ---
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index faa1ecc1fe9d..1f6fc74c7ea1 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -20969,6 +20969,7 @@ static int check_map_prog_compatibility(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>                 case BPF_MAP_TYPE_STACK:
>                 case BPF_MAP_TYPE_ARENA:
>                 case BPF_MAP_TYPE_INSN_ARRAY:
> +               case BPF_MAP_TYPE_PROG_ARRAY:
>                         break;
>                 default:
>                         verbose(env,

Think it through, add selftests, ship it.
On the surface the easy part is to make
__bpf_prog_map_compatible() reject sleepable/non-sleepable combo.
Maybe there are other things.