[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <874io9tonn.fsf@cloudflare.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2026 21:37:00 +0100
From: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>
To: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann
<daniel@...earbox.net>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Eduard Zingerman
<eddyz87@...il.com>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song
<yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Stanislav
Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa
<jolsa@...nel.org>, Amery Hung <ameryhung@...il.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...udflare.com,
ihor.solodrai@...ux.dev, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/4] bpf, verifier: Support direct helper
calls from prologue/epilogue
On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 03:49 PM -08, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On 1/23/26 9:05 AM, Jakub Sitnicki wrote:
>> @@ -23909,6 +23928,9 @@ static int do_misc_fixups(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
>> goto next_insn;
>> }
>> patch_call_imm:
>> + if (env->insn_aux_data[i + delta].finalized_call)
>> + goto next_insn;
>> +
>> fn = env->ops->get_func_proto(insn->imm, env->prog);
>> /* all functions that have prototype and verifier allowed
>> * programs to call them, must be real in-kernel functions
>> @@ -23920,6 +23942,7 @@ static int do_misc_fixups(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
>> return -EFAULT;
>> }
>> insn->imm = fn->func - __bpf_call_base;
>> + env->insn_aux_data[i + delta].finalized_call = true;
>> next_insn:
>> if (subprogs[cur_subprog + 1].start == i + delta + 1) {
>> subprogs[cur_subprog].stack_depth += stack_depth_extra;
>> diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c
>> index d14401193b01..cb39388f69a9 100644
>> --- a/net/core/filter.c
>> +++ b/net/core/filter.c
>> @@ -9082,8 +9082,7 @@ static int bpf_unclone_prologue(struct bpf_insn *insn_buf, bool direct_write,
>> /* ret = bpf_skb_pull_data(skb, 0); */
>> *insn++ = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1);
>> *insn++ = BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_XOR, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_2);
>> - *insn++ = BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0,
>> - BPF_FUNC_skb_pull_data);
>> + *insn++ = BPF_EMIT_CALL(bpf_skb_pull_data);
>
> Ihor reported that the test_map has started failing on arm64.
>
> https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/21298510237/job/61311053284
> https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/21298505282/job/61312363930
> https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/21301695907/job/61321375157
>
> For BPF_PROG_TYPE_SK_SKB, the BPF_FUNC_skb_pull_data has a different
> func_proto. It is sk_skb_pull_data instead of bpf_skb_pull_data.
> A different func needs to be emitted here based on prog type.
> Not sure why it only fails on arm64.
>
> The set has been reverted to get the CI going.
> Please address the issue, add a test for this case, and
> then respin. Thanks.
Sorry for this oversight.
I see now that sk_skb_pull_data doesn't bpf_compute_data_pointers which
writes over skb->cb. Perhaps that has something to do with the failure.
Will get this sorted.
Expect some delay. This is a pre-conferece week (FOSDEM).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists