From: Alexei Starovoitov Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 17:31:18 +0000 (-0700) Subject: Merge branch 'bpf-allow-bpf_for_each_map_elem-helper-with-different-input-maps' X-Git-Url: http://git.maquefel.me/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=270954791c706b133a03b01e4b2d063dc870f704;p=linux.git Merge branch 'bpf-allow-bpf_for_each_map_elem-helper-with-different-input-maps' Philo Lu says: ==================== bpf: allow bpf_for_each_map_elem() helper with different input maps Currently, taking different maps within a single bpf_for_each_map_elem call is not allowed. For example the following codes cannot pass the verifier (with error "tail_call abusing map_ptr"): ``` static void test_by_pid(int pid) { if (pid <= 100) bpf_for_each_map_elem(&map1, map_elem_cb, NULL, 0); else bpf_for_each_map_elem(&map2, map_elem_cb, NULL, 0); } ``` This is because during bpf_for_each_map_elem verifying, bpf_insn_aux_data->map_ptr_state is expected as map_ptr (instead of poison state), which is then needed by set_map_elem_callback_state. However, as there are two different map ptr input, map_ptr_state is marked as BPF_MAP_PTR_POISON, and thus the second map_ptr would be lost. BPF_MAP_PTR_POISON is also needed by bpf_for_each_map_elem to skip retpoline optimization in do_misc_fixups(). Therefore, map_ptr_state and map_ptr are both needed for bpf_for_each_map_elem. This patchset solves it by transform bpf_insn_aux_data->map_ptr_state as a new struct, storing poison/unpriv state and map pointer together without additional memory overhead. Then bpf_for_each_map_elem works well with different input maps. It also makes map_ptr_state logic clearer. A test case is added to selftest, which would fail to load without this patchset. Changelogs -> v1: - PATCH 1/3: - make the commit log clearer - change poison and unpriv to bool in struct bpf_map_ptr_state, also the return value in bpf_map_ptr_poisoned() and bpf_map_ptr_unpriv() - PATCH 2/3: - change the comments in set_map_elem_callback_state() - PATCH 3/3: - remove the "skipping the last element" logic during map updating - change if() to ASSERT_OK() Please review, thanks. ==================== Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240405025536.18113-1-lulie@linux.alibaba.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov --- 270954791c706b133a03b01e4b2d063dc870f704