summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/include/linux
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorAlexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>2026-01-28 18:41:57 -0800
committerAlexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>2026-01-28 18:41:57 -0800
commit95dbe214b910fc80f0627e1760305cc0f472ff9f (patch)
tree3e2944caeb45a9e6c70d3f68647df63cfff452ea /include/linux
parent08a7491843224f8b96518fbe70d9e48163046054 (diff)
parent60d2c438c1bb705cdbf74ce8f12e6e141a4719b0 (diff)
Merge branch 'bpf-fix-verifier_bug_if-to-account-for-bpf_call'
Luis Gerhorst says: ==================== bpf: Fix verifier_bug_if to account for BPF_CALL This fixes the verifier_bug_if() that runs on nospec_result to not trigger for BPF_CALL (bug reported by Hu, Mei, and Mu). See patch 1 for a full description and patch 2 for a test (based on the PoC from the report). While working on this I noticed two other problems: - nospec_result is currently ignored for BPF_CALL during patching, but it may be required if we assume the CPU may speculate into/out of functions. - Both the instruction patching for nospec and nospec_result erases the instruction aux information even thought it might be better to keep that. For nospec_result it may be fine as it is only applied to store instructions currently (except for when we decide to change the thing from above), but nospec may be set for arbitrary instructions and if these require rewrites they break. I assume these issues are better fixed separately, thus I decided to exclude them from this series. ==================== Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260127115912.3026761-1-luis.gerhorst@fau.de Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'include/linux')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions