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

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

Message-ID: <aWkrMckumhQErMmV@krava>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2026 19:00:17 +0100
From: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>, 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 01:56:11PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> 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.

ok, thanks

jirka