From: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com> To: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com> Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>, Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, bpf@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: propagate __user annotations properly Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 17:28:15 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAKXUXMxy92jnARL-ibh1BDqSE3VvzKFMpo8YsC+40JMjFpcSHg@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <480e9a0f-0a27-aec2-e8c6-a73b46069ba8@fb.com> On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 5:12 PM Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com> wrote: > > > > On 12/7/20 4:37 AM, Lukas Bulwahn wrote: > > __htab_map_lookup_and_delete_batch() stores a user pointer in the local > > variable ubatch and uses that in copy_{from,to}_user(), but ubatch misses a > > __user annotation. > > > > So, sparse warns in the various assignments and uses of ubatch: > > > > kernel/bpf/hashtab.c:1415:24: warning: incorrect type in initializer > > (different address spaces) > > kernel/bpf/hashtab.c:1415:24: expected void *ubatch > > kernel/bpf/hashtab.c:1415:24: got void [noderef] __user * > > > > kernel/bpf/hashtab.c:1444:46: warning: incorrect type in argument 2 > > (different address spaces) > > kernel/bpf/hashtab.c:1444:46: expected void const [noderef] __user *from > > kernel/bpf/hashtab.c:1444:46: got void *ubatch > > > > kernel/bpf/hashtab.c:1608:16: warning: incorrect type in assignment > > (different address spaces) > > kernel/bpf/hashtab.c:1608:16: expected void *ubatch > > kernel/bpf/hashtab.c:1608:16: got void [noderef] __user * > > > > kernel/bpf/hashtab.c:1609:26: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 > > (different address spaces) > > kernel/bpf/hashtab.c:1609:26: expected void [noderef] __user *to > > kernel/bpf/hashtab.c:1609:26: got void *ubatch > > > > Add the __user annotation to repair this chain of propagating __user > > annotations in __htab_map_lookup_and_delete_batch(). > > Add fix tag? > > Fixes: 057996380a42 ("bpf: Add batch ops to all htab bpf map") > Fixes tag can be added by the maintainers when they pick it, but I personally am not a fan of adding a Fixes tag for such a minor fix here. It is purely a syntactic change and change for the sparse semantic parser, but it really does not need to be backported and nothing observable in the binary was broken. That is my rationale for not adding a Fixes: tag here. It is your final call. > > > > Signed-off-by: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com> > > Thanks for the fix. LGTM. I guess either bpf or bpf-next tree is fine > since this is not a correctness issue. > Agree, and it is no functional change, nor a change in the object code. So risks of regressions are very, very low (zero). Thanks for the review, Lukas
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com> To: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com> Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>, Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, bpf@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: propagate __user annotations properly Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 16:28:15 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAKXUXMxy92jnARL-ibh1BDqSE3VvzKFMpo8YsC+40JMjFpcSHg@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <480e9a0f-0a27-aec2-e8c6-a73b46069ba8@fb.com> On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 5:12 PM Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com> wrote: > > > > On 12/7/20 4:37 AM, Lukas Bulwahn wrote: > > __htab_map_lookup_and_delete_batch() stores a user pointer in the local > > variable ubatch and uses that in copy_{from,to}_user(), but ubatch misses a > > __user annotation. > > > > So, sparse warns in the various assignments and uses of ubatch: > > > > kernel/bpf/hashtab.c:1415:24: warning: incorrect type in initializer > > (different address spaces) > > kernel/bpf/hashtab.c:1415:24: expected void *ubatch > > kernel/bpf/hashtab.c:1415:24: got void [noderef] __user * > > > > kernel/bpf/hashtab.c:1444:46: warning: incorrect type in argument 2 > > (different address spaces) > > kernel/bpf/hashtab.c:1444:46: expected void const [noderef] __user *from > > kernel/bpf/hashtab.c:1444:46: got void *ubatch > > > > kernel/bpf/hashtab.c:1608:16: warning: incorrect type in assignment > > (different address spaces) > > kernel/bpf/hashtab.c:1608:16: expected void *ubatch > > kernel/bpf/hashtab.c:1608:16: got void [noderef] __user * > > > > kernel/bpf/hashtab.c:1609:26: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 > > (different address spaces) > > kernel/bpf/hashtab.c:1609:26: expected void [noderef] __user *to > > kernel/bpf/hashtab.c:1609:26: got void *ubatch > > > > Add the __user annotation to repair this chain of propagating __user > > annotations in __htab_map_lookup_and_delete_batch(). > > Add fix tag? > > Fixes: 057996380a42 ("bpf: Add batch ops to all htab bpf map") > Fixes tag can be added by the maintainers when they pick it, but I personally am not a fan of adding a Fixes tag for such a minor fix here. It is purely a syntactic change and change for the sparse semantic parser, but it really does not need to be backported and nothing observable in the binary was broken. That is my rationale for not adding a Fixes: tag here. It is your final call. > > > > Signed-off-by: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com> > > Thanks for the fix. LGTM. I guess either bpf or bpf-next tree is fine > since this is not a correctness issue. > Agree, and it is no functional change, nor a change in the object code. So risks of regressions are very, very low (zero). Thanks for the review, Lukas
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-07 16:29 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-12-07 12:37 [PATCH] bpf: propagate __user annotations properly Lukas Bulwahn 2020-12-07 12:37 ` Lukas Bulwahn 2020-12-07 16:12 ` Yonghong Song 2020-12-07 16:12 ` Yonghong Song 2020-12-07 16:28 ` Lukas Bulwahn [this message] 2020-12-07 16:28 ` Lukas Bulwahn 2020-12-08 3:30 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=CAKXUXMxy92jnARL-ibh1BDqSE3VvzKFMpo8YsC+40JMjFpcSHg@mail.gmail.com \ --to=lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com \ --cc=andrii@kernel.org \ --cc=ast@kernel.org \ --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \ --cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \ --cc=kafai@fb.com \ --cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=kpsingh@chromium.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=songliubraving@fb.com \ --cc=yhs@fb.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.