On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 11:08 AM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 8/18/23 6:01 PM, Yan Zhai wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 9:55 AM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On 8/18/23 4:58 AM, Yan Zhai wrote: > >>> lwt xmit hook does not expect positive return values in function > >>> ip_finish_output2 and ip6_finish_output. However, BPF programs can > >>> directly return positive statuses such like NET_XMIT_DROP, NET_RX_DROP, > >>> and etc to the caller. Such return values would make the kernel continue > >>> processing already freed skbs and eventually panic. > >>> > >>> This set fixes the return values from BPF ops to unexpected continue > >>> processing, checks strictly on the correct continue condition for > >>> future proof. In addition, add missing selftests for BPF redirect > >>> and reroute cases for BPF-CI. > >>> > >>> v5: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/cover.1692153515.git.yan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > >>> v4: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/ZMD1sFTW8SFiex+x@debian.debian/T/ > >>> v3: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/cover.1690255889.git.yan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > >>> v2: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/ZLdY6JkWRccunvu0@debian.debian/ > >>> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/ZLbYdpWC8zt9EJtq@debian.debian/ > >>> > >>> changes since v5: > >>> * fix BPF-CI failures due to missing config and busybox ping issue > >> > >> Series looks good, thanks! Given we're fairly close to merge window and > >> this has been broken for quite some time, I took this into bpf-next. > >> > > Thanks Daniel! Can you also queue this up for stable (or guide how I can do it)? > > Given the Fixes tags, it will be picked up automatically once it lands in > Linus' tree. > Wonderful. Thank you! > Thanks, > Daniel
