* [PATCH bpf 0/3] bpf: Fixes for bpf_sk_storage
@ 2023-09-01 23:11 Martin KaFai Lau
2023-09-01 23:11 ` [PATCH bpf 1/3] bpf: bpf_sk_storage: Fix invalid wait context lockdep report Martin KaFai Lau
` (3 more replies)
0 siblings, 4 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Martin KaFai Lau @ 2023-09-01 23:11 UTC (permalink / raw
To: bpf
Cc: 'Alexei Starovoitov ', 'Andrii Nakryiko ',
'Daniel Borkmann ', netdev, kernel-team
From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
This set has two fixes for bpf_sk_storage. Please see the individual
patch for details.
Martin KaFai Lau (3):
bpf: bpf_sk_storage: Fix invalid wait context lockdep report
bpf: bpf_sk_storage: Fix the missing uncharge in sk_omem_alloc
selftests/bpf: Check bpf_sk_storage has uncharged sk_omem_alloc
kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c | 49 +++++----------
.../bpf/prog_tests/sk_storage_omem_uncharge.c | 56 +++++++++++++++++
.../selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_tracing_net.h | 1 +
.../bpf/progs/sk_storage_omem_uncharge.c | 61 +++++++++++++++++++
4 files changed, 133 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sk_storage_omem_uncharge.c
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/sk_storage_omem_uncharge.c
--
2.34.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [PATCH bpf 1/3] bpf: bpf_sk_storage: Fix invalid wait context lockdep report
2023-09-01 23:11 [PATCH bpf 0/3] bpf: Fixes for bpf_sk_storage Martin KaFai Lau
@ 2023-09-01 23:11 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2023-09-01 23:11 ` [PATCH bpf 2/3] bpf: bpf_sk_storage: Fix the missing uncharge in sk_omem_alloc Martin KaFai Lau
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Martin KaFai Lau @ 2023-09-01 23:11 UTC (permalink / raw
To: bpf
Cc: 'Alexei Starovoitov ', 'Andrii Nakryiko ',
'Daniel Borkmann ', netdev, kernel-team
From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
'./test_progs -t test_local_storage' reported a splat:
[ 27.137569] =============================
[ 27.138122] [ BUG: Invalid wait context ]
[ 27.138650] 6.5.0-03980-gd11ae1b16b0a #247 Tainted: G O
[ 27.139542] -----------------------------
[ 27.140106] test_progs/1729 is trying to lock:
[ 27.140713] ffff8883ef047b88 (stock_lock){-.-.}-{3:3}, at: local_lock_acquire+0x9/0x130
[ 27.141834] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 27.142437] context-{5:5}
[ 27.142856] 2 locks held by test_progs/1729:
[ 27.143352] #0: ffffffff84bcd9c0 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:3}, at: rcu_lock_acquire+0x4/0x40
[ 27.144492] #1: ffff888107deb2c0 (&storage->lock){..-.}-{2:2}, at: bpf_local_storage_update+0x39e/0x8e0
[ 27.145855] stack backtrace:
[ 27.146274] CPU: 0 PID: 1729 Comm: test_progs Tainted: G O 6.5.0-03980-gd11ae1b16b0a #247
[ 27.147550] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.14.0-0-g155821a1990b-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
[ 27.149127] Call Trace:
[ 27.149490] <TASK>
[ 27.149867] dump_stack_lvl+0x130/0x1d0
[ 27.152609] dump_stack+0x14/0x20
[ 27.153131] __lock_acquire+0x1657/0x2220
[ 27.153677] lock_acquire+0x1b8/0x510
[ 27.157908] local_lock_acquire+0x29/0x130
[ 27.159048] obj_cgroup_charge+0xf4/0x3c0
[ 27.160794] slab_pre_alloc_hook+0x28e/0x2b0
[ 27.161931] __kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x51/0x210
[ 27.163557] __kmalloc+0xaa/0x210
[ 27.164593] bpf_map_kzalloc+0xbc/0x170
[ 27.165147] bpf_selem_alloc+0x130/0x510
[ 27.166295] bpf_local_storage_update+0x5aa/0x8e0
[ 27.167042] bpf_fd_sk_storage_update_elem+0xdb/0x1a0
[ 27.169199] bpf_map_update_value+0x415/0x4f0
[ 27.169871] map_update_elem+0x413/0x550
[ 27.170330] __sys_bpf+0x5e9/0x640
[ 27.174065] __x64_sys_bpf+0x80/0x90
[ 27.174568] do_syscall_64+0x48/0xa0
[ 27.175201] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6e/0xd8
[ 27.175932] RIP: 0033:0x7effb40e41ad
[ 27.176357] Code: ff c3 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 90 f3 0f 1e fa 48 89 f8 48 89 f7 48 89 d6 48 89 ca 4d 89 c2 4d 89 c8 4c 8b 4c 24 08 0f 05 <48> 3d 01 f0 ff ff 73 01 c3 48 8b 0d8
[ 27.179028] RSP: 002b:00007ffe64c21fc8 EFLAGS: 00000202 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000141
[ 27.180088] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 00007ffe64c22768 RCX: 00007effb40e41ad
[ 27.181082] RDX: 0000000000000020 RSI: 00007ffe64c22008 RDI: 0000000000000002
[ 27.182030] RBP: 00007ffe64c21ff0 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 00007ffe64c22788
[ 27.183038] R10: 0000000000000064 R11: 0000000000000202 R12: 0000000000000000
[ 27.184006] R13: 00007ffe64c22788 R14: 00007effb42a1000 R15: 0000000000000000
[ 27.184958] </TASK>
It complains about acquiring a local_lock while holding a raw_spin_lock.
It means it should not allocate memory while holding a raw_spin_lock
since it is not safe for RT.
raw_spin_lock is needed because bpf_local_storage supports tracing
context. In particular for task local storage, it is easy to
get a "current" task PTR_TO_BTF_ID in tracing bpf prog.
However, task (and cgroup) local storage has already been moved to
bpf mem allocator which can be used after raw_spin_lock.
The splat is for the sk storage. For sk (and inode) storage,
it has not been moved to bpf mem allocator. Using raw_spin_lock or not,
kzalloc(GFP_ATOMIC) could theoretically be unsafe in tracing context.
However, the local storage helper requires a verifier accepted
sk pointer (PTR_TO_BTF_ID), it is hypothetical if that (mean running
a bpf prog in a kzalloc unsafe context and also able to hold a verifier
accepted sk pointer) could happen.
This patch avoids kzalloc after raw_spin_lock to silent the splat.
There is an existing kzalloc before the raw_spin_lock. At that point,
a kzalloc is very likely required because a lookup has just been done
before. Thus, this patch always does the kzalloc before acquiring
the raw_spin_lock and remove the later kzalloc usage after the
raw_spin_lock. After this change, it will have a charge and then
uncharge during the syscall bpf_map_update_elem() code path.
This patch opts for simplicity and not continue the old
optimization to save one charge and uncharge.
This issue is dated back to the very first commit of bpf_sk_storage
which had been refactored multiple times to create task, inode, and
cgroup storage. This patch uses a Fixes tag with a more recent
commit that should be easier to do backport.
Fixes: b00fa38a9c1c ("bpf: Enable non-atomic allocations in local storage")
Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
---
kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c | 47 ++++++++++------------------------
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c
index b5149cfce7d4..37ad47d52dc5 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c
@@ -553,7 +553,7 @@ bpf_local_storage_update(void *owner, struct bpf_local_storage_map *smap,
void *value, u64 map_flags, gfp_t gfp_flags)
{
struct bpf_local_storage_data *old_sdata = NULL;
- struct bpf_local_storage_elem *selem = NULL;
+ struct bpf_local_storage_elem *alloc_selem, *selem = NULL;
struct bpf_local_storage *local_storage;
unsigned long flags;
int err;
@@ -607,11 +607,12 @@ bpf_local_storage_update(void *owner, struct bpf_local_storage_map *smap,
}
}
- if (gfp_flags == GFP_KERNEL) {
- selem = bpf_selem_alloc(smap, owner, value, true, gfp_flags);
- if (!selem)
- return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
- }
+ /* A lookup has just been done before and concluded a new selem is
+ * needed. The chance of an unnecessary alloc is unlikely.
+ */
+ alloc_selem = selem = bpf_selem_alloc(smap, owner, value, true, gfp_flags);
+ if (!alloc_selem)
+ return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&local_storage->lock, flags);
@@ -623,13 +624,13 @@ bpf_local_storage_update(void *owner, struct bpf_local_storage_map *smap,
* simple.
*/
err = -EAGAIN;
- goto unlock_err;
+ goto unlock;
}
old_sdata = bpf_local_storage_lookup(local_storage, smap, false);
err = check_flags(old_sdata, map_flags);
if (err)
- goto unlock_err;
+ goto unlock;
if (old_sdata && (map_flags & BPF_F_LOCK)) {
copy_map_value_locked(&smap->map, old_sdata->data, value,
@@ -638,23 +639,7 @@ bpf_local_storage_update(void *owner, struct bpf_local_storage_map *smap,
goto unlock;
}
- if (gfp_flags != GFP_KERNEL) {
- /* local_storage->lock is held. Hence, we are sure
- * we can unlink and uncharge the old_sdata successfully
- * later. Hence, instead of charging the new selem now
- * and then uncharge the old selem later (which may cause
- * a potential but unnecessary charge failure), avoid taking
- * a charge at all here (the "!old_sdata" check) and the
- * old_sdata will not be uncharged later during
- * bpf_selem_unlink_storage_nolock().
- */
- selem = bpf_selem_alloc(smap, owner, value, !old_sdata, gfp_flags);
- if (!selem) {
- err = -ENOMEM;
- goto unlock_err;
- }
- }
-
+ alloc_selem = NULL;
/* First, link the new selem to the map */
bpf_selem_link_map(smap, selem);
@@ -665,20 +650,16 @@ bpf_local_storage_update(void *owner, struct bpf_local_storage_map *smap,
if (old_sdata) {
bpf_selem_unlink_map(SELEM(old_sdata));
bpf_selem_unlink_storage_nolock(local_storage, SELEM(old_sdata),
- false, false);
+ true, false);
}
unlock:
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&local_storage->lock, flags);
- return SDATA(selem);
-
-unlock_err:
- raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&local_storage->lock, flags);
- if (selem) {
+ if (alloc_selem) {
mem_uncharge(smap, owner, smap->elem_size);
- bpf_selem_free(selem, smap, true);
+ bpf_selem_free(alloc_selem, smap, true);
}
- return ERR_PTR(err);
+ return err ? ERR_PTR(err) : SDATA(selem);
}
static u16 bpf_local_storage_cache_idx_get(struct bpf_local_storage_cache *cache)
--
2.34.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [PATCH bpf 2/3] bpf: bpf_sk_storage: Fix the missing uncharge in sk_omem_alloc
2023-09-01 23:11 [PATCH bpf 0/3] bpf: Fixes for bpf_sk_storage Martin KaFai Lau
2023-09-01 23:11 ` [PATCH bpf 1/3] bpf: bpf_sk_storage: Fix invalid wait context lockdep report Martin KaFai Lau
@ 2023-09-01 23:11 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2023-09-01 23:11 ` [PATCH bpf 3/3] selftests/bpf: Check bpf_sk_storage has uncharged sk_omem_alloc Martin KaFai Lau
2023-09-06 9:10 ` [PATCH bpf 0/3] bpf: Fixes for bpf_sk_storage patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Martin KaFai Lau @ 2023-09-01 23:11 UTC (permalink / raw
To: bpf
Cc: 'Alexei Starovoitov ', 'Andrii Nakryiko ',
'Daniel Borkmann ', netdev, kernel-team
From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
The commit c83597fa5dc6 ("bpf: Refactor some inode/task/sk storage functions for reuse"),
refactored the bpf_{sk,task,inode}_storage_free() into
bpf_local_storage_unlink_nolock() which then later renamed
to bpf_local_storage_destroy(). The commit accidentally passed the
"bool uncharge_mem = false" argument to bpf_selem_unlink_storage_nolock()
which then stopped the uncharge from happening to the sk->sk_omem_alloc.
This missing uncharge only happens when the sk is going away (during
__sk_destruct).
This patch fixes it by always passing "uncharge_mem = true". It is a
noop to the task/inode/cgroup storage because they do not have the
map_local_storage_(un)charge enabled in the map_ops. A followup patch will
be done in bpf-next to remove the uncharge_mem argument.
A selftest is added in the next patch.
Fixes: c83597fa5dc6 ("bpf: Refactor some inode/task/sk storage functions for reuse")
Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
---
kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c
index 37ad47d52dc5..146824cc9689 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c
@@ -760,7 +760,7 @@ void bpf_local_storage_destroy(struct bpf_local_storage *local_storage)
* of the loop will set the free_cgroup_storage to true.
*/
free_storage = bpf_selem_unlink_storage_nolock(
- local_storage, selem, false, true);
+ local_storage, selem, true, true);
}
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&local_storage->lock, flags);
--
2.34.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [PATCH bpf 3/3] selftests/bpf: Check bpf_sk_storage has uncharged sk_omem_alloc
2023-09-01 23:11 [PATCH bpf 0/3] bpf: Fixes for bpf_sk_storage Martin KaFai Lau
2023-09-01 23:11 ` [PATCH bpf 1/3] bpf: bpf_sk_storage: Fix invalid wait context lockdep report Martin KaFai Lau
2023-09-01 23:11 ` [PATCH bpf 2/3] bpf: bpf_sk_storage: Fix the missing uncharge in sk_omem_alloc Martin KaFai Lau
@ 2023-09-01 23:11 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2023-09-06 9:10 ` [PATCH bpf 0/3] bpf: Fixes for bpf_sk_storage patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Martin KaFai Lau @ 2023-09-01 23:11 UTC (permalink / raw
To: bpf
Cc: 'Alexei Starovoitov ', 'Andrii Nakryiko ',
'Daniel Borkmann ', netdev, kernel-team
From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
This patch checks the sk_omem_alloc has been uncharged by bpf_sk_storage
during the __sk_destruct.
Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
---
.../bpf/prog_tests/sk_storage_omem_uncharge.c | 56 +++++++++++++++++
.../selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_tracing_net.h | 1 +
.../bpf/progs/sk_storage_omem_uncharge.c | 61 +++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 118 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sk_storage_omem_uncharge.c
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/sk_storage_omem_uncharge.c
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sk_storage_omem_uncharge.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sk_storage_omem_uncharge.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..f35852d245e3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sk_storage_omem_uncharge.c
@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+/* Copyright (c) 2023 Facebook */
+#include <test_progs.h>
+#include <bpf/libbpf.h>
+#include <sys/types.h>
+#include <sys/socket.h>
+#include "sk_storage_omem_uncharge.skel.h"
+
+void test_sk_storage_omem_uncharge(void)
+{
+ struct sk_storage_omem_uncharge *skel;
+ int sk_fd = -1, map_fd, err, value;
+ socklen_t optlen;
+
+ skel = sk_storage_omem_uncharge__open_and_load();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "skel open_and_load"))
+ return;
+ map_fd = bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.sk_storage);
+
+ /* A standalone socket not binding to addr:port,
+ * so nentns is not needed.
+ */
+ sk_fd = socket(AF_INET6, SOCK_STREAM, 0);
+ if (!ASSERT_GE(sk_fd, 0, "socket"))
+ goto done;
+
+ optlen = sizeof(skel->bss->cookie);
+ err = getsockopt(sk_fd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_COOKIE, &skel->bss->cookie, &optlen);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "getsockopt(SO_COOKIE)"))
+ goto done;
+
+ value = 0;
+ err = bpf_map_update_elem(map_fd, &sk_fd, &value, 0);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "bpf_map_update_elem(value=0)"))
+ goto done;
+
+ value = 0xdeadbeef;
+ err = bpf_map_update_elem(map_fd, &sk_fd, &value, 0);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "bpf_map_update_elem(value=0xdeadbeef)"))
+ goto done;
+
+ err = sk_storage_omem_uncharge__attach(skel);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "attach"))
+ goto done;
+
+ close(sk_fd);
+ sk_fd = -1;
+
+ ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->cookie_found, 2, "cookie_found");
+ ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->omem, 0, "omem");
+
+done:
+ sk_storage_omem_uncharge__destroy(skel);
+ if (sk_fd != -1)
+ close(sk_fd);
+}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_tracing_net.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_tracing_net.h
index cfed4df490f3..0b793a102791 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_tracing_net.h
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_tracing_net.h
@@ -88,6 +88,7 @@
#define sk_v6_rcv_saddr __sk_common.skc_v6_rcv_saddr
#define sk_flags __sk_common.skc_flags
#define sk_reuse __sk_common.skc_reuse
+#define sk_cookie __sk_common.skc_cookie
#define s6_addr32 in6_u.u6_addr32
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/sk_storage_omem_uncharge.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/sk_storage_omem_uncharge.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..3e745793b27a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/sk_storage_omem_uncharge.c
@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+/* Copyright (c) 2023 Facebook */
+#include "vmlinux.h"
+#include "bpf_tracing_net.h"
+#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_core_read.h>
+
+void *local_storage_ptr = NULL;
+void *sk_ptr = NULL;
+int cookie_found = 0;
+__u64 cookie = 0;
+__u32 omem = 0;
+
+void *bpf_rdonly_cast(void *, __u32) __ksym;
+
+struct {
+ __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_SK_STORAGE);
+ __uint(map_flags, BPF_F_NO_PREALLOC);
+ __type(key, int);
+ __type(value, int);
+} sk_storage SEC(".maps");
+
+SEC("fexit/bpf_local_storage_destroy")
+int BPF_PROG(bpf_local_storage_destroy, struct bpf_local_storage *local_storage)
+{
+ struct sock *sk;
+
+ if (local_storage_ptr != local_storage)
+ return 0;
+
+ sk = bpf_rdonly_cast(sk_ptr, bpf_core_type_id_kernel(struct sock));
+ if (sk->sk_cookie.counter != cookie)
+ return 0;
+
+ cookie_found++;
+ omem = sk->sk_omem_alloc.counter;
+ local_storage_ptr = NULL;
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+SEC("fentry/inet6_sock_destruct")
+int BPF_PROG(inet6_sock_destruct, struct sock *sk)
+{
+ int *value;
+
+ if (!cookie || sk->sk_cookie.counter != cookie)
+ return 0;
+
+ value = bpf_sk_storage_get(&sk_storage, sk, 0, 0);
+ if (value && *value == 0xdeadbeef) {
+ cookie_found++;
+ sk_ptr = sk;
+ local_storage_ptr = sk->sk_bpf_storage;
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
--
2.34.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH bpf 0/3] bpf: Fixes for bpf_sk_storage
2023-09-01 23:11 [PATCH bpf 0/3] bpf: Fixes for bpf_sk_storage Martin KaFai Lau
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2023-09-01 23:11 ` [PATCH bpf 3/3] selftests/bpf: Check bpf_sk_storage has uncharged sk_omem_alloc Martin KaFai Lau
@ 2023-09-06 9:10 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: patchwork-bot+netdevbpf @ 2023-09-06 9:10 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Martin KaFai Lau; +Cc: bpf, ast, andrii, daniel, netdev, kernel-team
Hello:
This series was applied to bpf/bpf.git (master)
by Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>:
On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 16:11:26 -0700 you wrote:
> From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
>
> This set has two fixes for bpf_sk_storage. Please see the individual
> patch for details.
>
> Martin KaFai Lau (3):
> bpf: bpf_sk_storage: Fix invalid wait context lockdep report
> bpf: bpf_sk_storage: Fix the missing uncharge in sk_omem_alloc
> selftests/bpf: Check bpf_sk_storage has uncharged sk_omem_alloc
>
> [...]
Here is the summary with links:
- [bpf,1/3] bpf: bpf_sk_storage: Fix invalid wait context lockdep report
https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf/c/a96a44aba556
- [bpf,2/3] bpf: bpf_sk_storage: Fix the missing uncharge in sk_omem_alloc
https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf/c/55d49f750b1c
- [bpf,3/3] selftests/bpf: Check bpf_sk_storage has uncharged sk_omem_alloc
https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf/c/a96d1cfb2da0
You are awesome, thank you!
--
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-09-06 9:10 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-09-01 23:11 [PATCH bpf 0/3] bpf: Fixes for bpf_sk_storage Martin KaFai Lau
2023-09-01 23:11 ` [PATCH bpf 1/3] bpf: bpf_sk_storage: Fix invalid wait context lockdep report Martin KaFai Lau
2023-09-01 23:11 ` [PATCH bpf 2/3] bpf: bpf_sk_storage: Fix the missing uncharge in sk_omem_alloc Martin KaFai Lau
2023-09-01 23:11 ` [PATCH bpf 3/3] selftests/bpf: Check bpf_sk_storage has uncharged sk_omem_alloc Martin KaFai Lau
2023-09-06 9:10 ` [PATCH bpf 0/3] bpf: Fixes for bpf_sk_storage patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
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.