From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 729B0C48BCF for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 16:18:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53B2A611AE for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 16:18:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229743AbhFIQUs (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jun 2021 12:20:48 -0400 Received: from mail-il1-f179.google.com ([209.85.166.179]:38573 "EHLO mail-il1-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231338AbhFIQUr (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jun 2021 12:20:47 -0400 Received: by mail-il1-f179.google.com with SMTP id d1so24043898ils.5; Wed, 09 Jun 2021 09:18:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=j3p+5VJ1d2gl2kt6X6tDU7XdZVaL9ybD/hRYi8R8WOw=; b=iEtOK9IvhBhlYSwdMM06sv05I5YnqdiWf+et7E56BvnsH6gdYF9yg8WEXcLpxXgx8i 9BEpMwY2sUmR7IYxn0TcE9PpciRODsuzEdHqnVv50R7P9awARSzUAfJU156lDWBW6d72 8qDM7X5TC9fTqaCZ4feUVH5EKQV5Fa6FZ3aLNOmHoT94vbG6jTotZVGSrqWk3mITl0Ph Pv6mhvpfsFFPWirmrahe8dRo60A5IaoyhTAZIhzEnZ4NEwB7Vqt6rNKEOmQmZqDJfG3d b2gv40Z+aEQJdplf001JvaI0Z67C4YqbitiaSTOAJwS20+6gl7/0u53l9tKbQFo869um q+1g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=j3p+5VJ1d2gl2kt6X6tDU7XdZVaL9ybD/hRYi8R8WOw=; b=nHlgUzYef46qxwDx55PC6sFnZAYTRl0sy6V8M3F0ERcwtvlL+qjSfPDn/h0OaRJb6J C2bhKH/Y3te34i2OAu3XHhpbV0WZC5QgGlP6n7QmwiobZ0Ln4wR/XcRrC57fG+wDojIf KnORFe1QaGIq6ov6ypyFPxj8NRplnGZQvFYolBvSpmxBdG4RGsmjk2rNI4Enr+dxJf6/ HiKOeYdxWL916kseTobgj4OAEgBgadxxo8VJmpUezPq6fRK7iLYvbytddaNKZEDct1ap yXiN4BjDitYfgORGnjixjBmHetHwKCx4Zx4w2JOIt4eqq0ILqV3jIRd6f41kedgNYFHL HTAg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533b7kxOG3fGUzEK9X9+8ipozcSjNVwEWa5zlbUyUi4y7gIHRTld jiz7NwEUNw+1tHqQZefc9xs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwgZa++VW/bv3YLGBU0fzluOrW2Qa9jN+0PkShqgU2pltxYYM2xVufLCIWn6u8pjzoyFMmISw== X-Received: by 2002:a92:c792:: with SMTP id c18mr373615ilk.103.1623255457809; Wed, 09 Jun 2021 09:17:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([172.243.157.240]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u5sm161027iob.44.2021.06.09.09.17.36 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 09 Jun 2021 09:17:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2021 09:17:29 -0700 From: John Fastabend To: Yonghong Song , John Fastabend , ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andriin@fb.com Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com Message-ID: <60c0e99991232_986212085a@john-XPS-13-9370.notmuch> In-Reply-To: <588e062e-f1aa-6bc5-8011-380be7bf1176@fb.com> References: <162318053542.323820.3719766457956848570.stgit@john-XPS-13-9370> <588e062e-f1aa-6bc5-8011-380be7bf1176@fb.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf 0/2] bpf fix for mixed tail calls and subprograms Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org Yonghong Song wrote: > > > On 6/8/21 12:29 PM, John Fastabend wrote: > > We recently tried to use mixed programs that have both tail calls and > > subprograms, but it needs the attached fix. Also added a small test > > addition that will cause the failure without the fix. > > > > Thanks, > > John > > > > --- > > > > John Fastabend (2): > > bpf: Fix null ptr deref with mixed tail calls and subprogs > > bpf: selftest to verify mixing bpf2bpf calls and tailcalls with insn patch > > > > > > .../selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_bpf2bpf4.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+) > > Don't know what happens. Apparently, the first patch made changes > in kernel/bpf/verifier.c, but it didn't show up in the above. Agh its how I applied the patches and cover-letter :/ I moved them between trees (bpf-next -> bpf) and lost the diff. I can resubmit if anyone cares.