Hello:
This series was applied to bpf/bpf-next.git (master)
by Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@xxxxxxxxxx>:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 14:19:34 +0800 you wrote:
> From: Hou Tao <houtao1@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Hi,
>
> The patchset aims to make the update of per-cpu prog->active and per-cpu
> bpf_task_storage_busy being preemption-safe. The problem is on same
> architectures (e.g. arm64), __this_cpu_{inc|dec|inc_return} are neither
> preemption-safe nor IRQ-safe, so under fully preemptible kernel the
> concurrent updates on these per-cpu variables may be interleaved and the
> final values of these variables may be not zero.
>
> [...]
Here is the summary with links:
- [bpf-next,v2,1/4] bpf: Use this_cpu_{inc|dec|inc_return} for bpf_task_storage_busy
https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf-next/c/197827a05e13
- [bpf-next,v2,2/4] bpf: Use this_cpu_{inc_return|dec} for prog->active
https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf-next/c/c89e843a11f1
- [bpf-next,v2,3/4] selftests/bpf: Move sys_pidfd_open() into task_local_storage_helpers.h
https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf-next/c/c710136e8774
- [bpf-next,v2,4/4] selftests/bpf: Test concurrent updates on bpf_task_storage_busy
https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf-next/c/73b97bc78b32
You are awesome, thank you!
--
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html
