diff options
5 files changed, 1 insertions, 466 deletions
diff --git a/queue-5.10/revert-bpf-aggressively-forget-precise-markings-during-state-checkpointing.patch b/queue-5.10/revert-bpf-aggressively-forget-precise-markings-during-state-checkpointing.patch deleted file mode 100644 index a7b96fe2ca..0000000000 --- a/queue-5.10/revert-bpf-aggressively-forget-precise-markings-during-state-checkpointing.patch +++ /dev/null @@ -1,84 +0,0 @@ -From stable+bounces-155353-greg=kroah.com@vger.kernel.org Mon Jun 23 13:54:53 2025 -From: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com> -Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 19:54:01 +0800 -Subject: Revert "bpf: aggressively forget precise markings during state checkpointing" -To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> -Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>, Luiz Capitulino <luizcap@amazon.com>, Wei Wei <weiwei.danny@bytedance.com>, Yuchen Zhang <zhangyuchen.lcr@bytedance.com> -Message-ID: <20250623115403.299-3-ziqianlu@bytedance.com> - -From: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com> - -This reverts commit 1952a4d5e4cf610336b9c9ab52b1fc4e42721cf3 which is -commit 7a830b53c17bbadcf99f778f28aaaa4e6c41df5f upstream. - -The backport of bpf precision tracking related changes has caused bpf -verifier to panic while loading some certain bpf prog so revert them. - -Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20250605070921.GA3795@bytedance/ -Reported-by: Wei Wei <weiwei.danny@bytedance.com> -Signed-off-by: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com> -Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> ---- - kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 37 ------------------------------------- - 1 file changed, 37 deletions(-) - ---- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c -+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c -@@ -2053,31 +2053,6 @@ static void mark_all_scalars_precise(str - } - } - --static void mark_all_scalars_imprecise(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_verifier_state *st) --{ -- struct bpf_func_state *func; -- struct bpf_reg_state *reg; -- int i, j; -- -- for (i = 0; i <= st->curframe; i++) { -- func = st->frame[i]; -- for (j = 0; j < BPF_REG_FP; j++) { -- reg = &func->regs[j]; -- if (reg->type != SCALAR_VALUE) -- continue; -- reg->precise = false; -- } -- for (j = 0; j < func->allocated_stack / BPF_REG_SIZE; j++) { -- if (!is_spilled_reg(&func->stack[j])) -- continue; -- reg = &func->stack[j].spilled_ptr; -- if (reg->type != SCALAR_VALUE) -- continue; -- reg->precise = false; -- } -- } --} -- - /* - * __mark_chain_precision() backtracks BPF program instruction sequence and - * chain of verifier states making sure that register *regno* (if regno >= 0) -@@ -2156,14 +2131,6 @@ static void mark_all_scalars_imprecise(s - * be imprecise. If any child state does require this register to be precise, - * we'll mark it precise later retroactively during precise markings - * propagation from child state to parent states. -- * -- * Skipping precise marking setting in current state is a mild version of -- * relying on the above observation. But we can utilize this property even -- * more aggressively by proactively forgetting any precise marking in the -- * current state (which we inherited from the parent state), right before we -- * checkpoint it and branch off into new child state. This is done by -- * mark_all_scalars_imprecise() to hopefully get more permissive and generic -- * finalized states which help in short circuiting more future states. - */ - static int __mark_chain_precision(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int frame, int regno, - int spi) -@@ -9928,10 +9895,6 @@ next: - env->prev_jmps_processed = env->jmps_processed; - env->prev_insn_processed = env->insn_processed; - -- /* forget precise markings we inherited, see __mark_chain_precision */ -- if (env->bpf_capable) -- mark_all_scalars_imprecise(env, cur); -- - /* add new state to the head of linked list */ - new = &new_sl->state; - err = copy_verifier_state(new, cur); diff --git a/queue-5.10/revert-bpf-allow-precision-tracking-for-programs-with-subprogs.patch b/queue-5.10/revert-bpf-allow-precision-tracking-for-programs-with-subprogs.patch deleted file mode 100644 index 97e656ea91..0000000000 --- a/queue-5.10/revert-bpf-allow-precision-tracking-for-programs-with-subprogs.patch +++ /dev/null @@ -1,88 +0,0 @@ -From stable+bounces-155355-greg=kroah.com@vger.kernel.org Mon Jun 23 13:54:41 2025 -From: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com> -Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 19:54:03 +0800 -Subject: Revert "bpf: allow precision tracking for programs with subprogs" -To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> -Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>, Luiz Capitulino <luizcap@amazon.com>, Wei Wei <weiwei.danny@bytedance.com>, Yuchen Zhang <zhangyuchen.lcr@bytedance.com> -Message-ID: <20250623115403.299-5-ziqianlu@bytedance.com> - -From: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com> - -This reverts commit 2474ec58b96d8a028b046beabdf49f5475eefcf8 which is -commit be2ef8161572ec1973124ebc50f56dafc2925e07 upstream. - -The backport of bpf precision tracking related changes has caused bpf -verifier to panic while loading some certain bpf prog so revert them. - -Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20250605070921.GA3795@bytedance/ -Reported-by: Wei Wei <weiwei.danny@bytedance.com> -Signed-off-by: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com> -Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> ---- - kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 35 +---------------------------------- - 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 34 deletions(-) - ---- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c -+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c -@@ -1359,7 +1359,7 @@ static void __mark_reg_unknown(const str - reg->type = SCALAR_VALUE; - reg->var_off = tnum_unknown; - reg->frameno = 0; -- reg->precise = !env->bpf_capable; -+ reg->precise = env->subprog_cnt > 1 || !env->bpf_capable; - __mark_reg_unbounded(reg); - } - -@@ -2102,42 +2102,12 @@ static int __mark_chain_precision(struct - return 0; - if (!reg_mask && !stack_mask) - return 0; -- - for (;;) { - DECLARE_BITMAP(mask, 64); - u32 history = st->jmp_history_cnt; - - if (env->log.level & BPF_LOG_LEVEL) - verbose(env, "last_idx %d first_idx %d\n", last_idx, first_idx); -- -- if (last_idx < 0) { -- /* we are at the entry into subprog, which -- * is expected for global funcs, but only if -- * requested precise registers are R1-R5 -- * (which are global func's input arguments) -- */ -- if (st->curframe == 0 && -- st->frame[0]->subprogno > 0 && -- st->frame[0]->callsite == BPF_MAIN_FUNC && -- stack_mask == 0 && (reg_mask & ~0x3e) == 0) { -- bitmap_from_u64(mask, reg_mask); -- for_each_set_bit(i, mask, 32) { -- reg = &st->frame[0]->regs[i]; -- if (reg->type != SCALAR_VALUE) { -- reg_mask &= ~(1u << i); -- continue; -- } -- reg->precise = true; -- } -- return 0; -- } -- -- verbose(env, "BUG backtracing func entry subprog %d reg_mask %x stack_mask %llx\n", -- st->frame[0]->subprogno, reg_mask, stack_mask); -- WARN_ONCE(1, "verifier backtracking bug"); -- return -EFAULT; -- } -- - for (i = last_idx;;) { - if (skip_first) { - err = 0; -@@ -11896,9 +11866,6 @@ static int do_check_common(struct bpf_ve - 0 /* frameno */, - subprog); - -- state->first_insn_idx = env->subprog_info[subprog].start; -- state->last_insn_idx = -1; -- - regs = state->frame[state->curframe]->regs; - if (subprog || env->prog->type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_EXT) { - ret = btf_prepare_func_args(env, subprog, regs); diff --git a/queue-5.10/revert-bpf-stop-setting-precise-in-current-state.patch b/queue-5.10/revert-bpf-stop-setting-precise-in-current-state.patch deleted file mode 100644 index ee18aa54d1..0000000000 --- a/queue-5.10/revert-bpf-stop-setting-precise-in-current-state.patch +++ /dev/null @@ -1,174 +0,0 @@ -From stable+bounces-155354-greg=kroah.com@vger.kernel.org Mon Jun 23 13:55:13 2025 -From: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com> -Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 19:54:02 +0800 -Subject: Revert "bpf: stop setting precise in current state" -To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> -Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>, Luiz Capitulino <luizcap@amazon.com>, Wei Wei <weiwei.danny@bytedance.com>, Yuchen Zhang <zhangyuchen.lcr@bytedance.com> -Message-ID: <20250623115403.299-4-ziqianlu@bytedance.com> - -From: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com> - -This reverts commit 7ca3e7459f4a5795e78b14390635879f534d9741 which is -commit f63181b6ae79fd3b034cde641db774268c2c3acf upstream. - -The backport of bpf precision tracking related changes has caused bpf -verifier to panic while loading some certain bpf prog so revert them. - -Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20250605070921.GA3795@bytedance/ -Reported-by: Wei Wei <weiwei.danny@bytedance.com> -Signed-off-by: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com> -Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> ---- - kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 103 +++++--------------------------------------------- - 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 91 deletions(-) - ---- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c -+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c -@@ -2028,11 +2028,8 @@ static void mark_all_scalars_precise(str - - /* big hammer: mark all scalars precise in this path. - * pop_stack may still get !precise scalars. -- * We also skip current state and go straight to first parent state, -- * because precision markings in current non-checkpointed state are -- * not needed. See why in the comment in __mark_chain_precision below. - */ -- for (st = st->parent; st; st = st->parent) { -+ for (; st; st = st->parent) - for (i = 0; i <= st->curframe; i++) { - func = st->frame[i]; - for (j = 0; j < BPF_REG_FP; j++) { -@@ -2050,88 +2047,8 @@ static void mark_all_scalars_precise(str - reg->precise = true; - } - } -- } - } - --/* -- * __mark_chain_precision() backtracks BPF program instruction sequence and -- * chain of verifier states making sure that register *regno* (if regno >= 0) -- * and/or stack slot *spi* (if spi >= 0) are marked as precisely tracked -- * SCALARS, as well as any other registers and slots that contribute to -- * a tracked state of given registers/stack slots, depending on specific BPF -- * assembly instructions (see backtrack_insns() for exact instruction handling -- * logic). This backtracking relies on recorded jmp_history and is able to -- * traverse entire chain of parent states. This process ends only when all the -- * necessary registers/slots and their transitive dependencies are marked as -- * precise. -- * -- * One important and subtle aspect is that precise marks *do not matter* in -- * the currently verified state (current state). It is important to understand -- * why this is the case. -- * -- * First, note that current state is the state that is not yet "checkpointed", -- * i.e., it is not yet put into env->explored_states, and it has no children -- * states as well. It's ephemeral, and can end up either a) being discarded if -- * compatible explored state is found at some point or BPF_EXIT instruction is -- * reached or b) checkpointed and put into env->explored_states, branching out -- * into one or more children states. -- * -- * In the former case, precise markings in current state are completely -- * ignored by state comparison code (see regsafe() for details). Only -- * checkpointed ("old") state precise markings are important, and if old -- * state's register/slot is precise, regsafe() assumes current state's -- * register/slot as precise and checks value ranges exactly and precisely. If -- * states turn out to be compatible, current state's necessary precise -- * markings and any required parent states' precise markings are enforced -- * after the fact with propagate_precision() logic, after the fact. But it's -- * important to realize that in this case, even after marking current state -- * registers/slots as precise, we immediately discard current state. So what -- * actually matters is any of the precise markings propagated into current -- * state's parent states, which are always checkpointed (due to b) case above). -- * As such, for scenario a) it doesn't matter if current state has precise -- * markings set or not. -- * -- * Now, for the scenario b), checkpointing and forking into child(ren) -- * state(s). Note that before current state gets to checkpointing step, any -- * processed instruction always assumes precise SCALAR register/slot -- * knowledge: if precise value or range is useful to prune jump branch, BPF -- * verifier takes this opportunity enthusiastically. Similarly, when -- * register's value is used to calculate offset or memory address, exact -- * knowledge of SCALAR range is assumed, checked, and enforced. So, similar to -- * what we mentioned above about state comparison ignoring precise markings -- * during state comparison, BPF verifier ignores and also assumes precise -- * markings *at will* during instruction verification process. But as verifier -- * assumes precision, it also propagates any precision dependencies across -- * parent states, which are not yet finalized, so can be further restricted -- * based on new knowledge gained from restrictions enforced by their children -- * states. This is so that once those parent states are finalized, i.e., when -- * they have no more active children state, state comparison logic in -- * is_state_visited() would enforce strict and precise SCALAR ranges, if -- * required for correctness. -- * -- * To build a bit more intuition, note also that once a state is checkpointed, -- * the path we took to get to that state is not important. This is crucial -- * property for state pruning. When state is checkpointed and finalized at -- * some instruction index, it can be correctly and safely used to "short -- * circuit" any *compatible* state that reaches exactly the same instruction -- * index. I.e., if we jumped to that instruction from a completely different -- * code path than original finalized state was derived from, it doesn't -- * matter, current state can be discarded because from that instruction -- * forward having a compatible state will ensure we will safely reach the -- * exit. States describe preconditions for further exploration, but completely -- * forget the history of how we got here. -- * -- * This also means that even if we needed precise SCALAR range to get to -- * finalized state, but from that point forward *that same* SCALAR register is -- * never used in a precise context (i.e., it's precise value is not needed for -- * correctness), it's correct and safe to mark such register as "imprecise" -- * (i.e., precise marking set to false). This is what we rely on when we do -- * not set precise marking in current state. If no child state requires -- * precision for any given SCALAR register, it's safe to dictate that it can -- * be imprecise. If any child state does require this register to be precise, -- * we'll mark it precise later retroactively during precise markings -- * propagation from child state to parent states. -- */ - static int __mark_chain_precision(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int frame, int regno, - int spi) - { -@@ -2149,10 +2066,6 @@ static int __mark_chain_precision(struct - if (!env->bpf_capable) - return 0; - -- /* Do sanity checks against current state of register and/or stack -- * slot, but don't set precise flag in current state, as precision -- * tracking in the current state is unnecessary. -- */ - func = st->frame[frame]; - if (regno >= 0) { - reg = &func->regs[regno]; -@@ -2160,7 +2073,11 @@ static int __mark_chain_precision(struct - WARN_ONCE(1, "backtracing misuse"); - return -EFAULT; - } -- new_marks = true; -+ if (!reg->precise) -+ new_marks = true; -+ else -+ reg_mask = 0; -+ reg->precise = true; - } - - while (spi >= 0) { -@@ -2173,7 +2090,11 @@ static int __mark_chain_precision(struct - stack_mask = 0; - break; - } -- new_marks = true; -+ if (!reg->precise) -+ new_marks = true; -+ else -+ stack_mask = 0; -+ reg->precise = true; - break; - } - -@@ -9358,7 +9279,7 @@ static bool regsafe(struct bpf_verifier_ - if (env->explore_alu_limits) - return false; - if (rcur->type == SCALAR_VALUE) { -- if (!rold->precise) -+ if (!rold->precise && !rcur->precise) - return true; - /* new val must satisfy old val knowledge */ - return range_within(rold, rcur) && diff --git a/queue-5.10/revert-selftests-bpf-make-test_align-selftest-more-robust.patch b/queue-5.10/revert-selftests-bpf-make-test_align-selftest-more-robust.patch deleted file mode 100644 index 1e4825cabe..0000000000 --- a/queue-5.10/revert-selftests-bpf-make-test_align-selftest-more-robust.patch +++ /dev/null @@ -1,116 +0,0 @@ -From stable+bounces-155352-greg=kroah.com@vger.kernel.org Mon Jun 23 13:54:48 2025 -From: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com> -Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 19:54:00 +0800 -Subject: Revert "selftests/bpf: make test_align selftest more robust" -To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> -Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>, Luiz Capitulino <luizcap@amazon.com>, Wei Wei <weiwei.danny@bytedance.com>, Yuchen Zhang <zhangyuchen.lcr@bytedance.com> -Message-ID: <20250623115403.299-2-ziqianlu@bytedance.com> - -From: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com> - -This reverts commit 4af2d9ddb7e78f97c23f709827e5075c6d866e34 which is -commit 4f999b767769b76378c3616c624afd6f4bb0d99f upstream. - -The backport of bpf precision tracking related changes has caused bpf -verifier to panic while loading some certain bpf prog so revert them. - -Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20250605070921.GA3795@bytedance/ -Reported-by: Wei Wei <weiwei.danny@bytedance.com> -Signed-off-by: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com> -Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> ---- - tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/align.c | 36 +++++++++---------------- - 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) - ---- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/align.c -+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/align.c -@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ - #include <test_progs.h> - - #define MAX_INSNS 512 --#define MAX_MATCHES 24 -+#define MAX_MATCHES 16 - - struct bpf_reg_match { - unsigned int line; -@@ -267,7 +267,6 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = { - */ - BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_5, BPF_REG_2), - BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_5, BPF_REG_6), -- BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_4, BPF_REG_5), - BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_5, 14), - BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_4, BPF_REG_5), - BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_4, 4), -@@ -281,7 +280,6 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = { - BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_5, BPF_REG_2), - BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_5, 14), - BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_5, BPF_REG_6), -- BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_4, BPF_REG_5), - BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_5, 4), - BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_5, BPF_REG_6), - BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_4, BPF_REG_5), -@@ -313,52 +311,44 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = { - {15, "R4=pkt(id=1,off=18,r=18,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"}, - {15, "R5=pkt(id=1,off=14,r=18,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"}, - /* Variable offset is added to R5 packet pointer, -- * resulting in auxiliary alignment of 4. To avoid BPF -- * verifier's precision backtracking logging -- * interfering we also have a no-op R4 = R5 -- * instruction to validate R5 state. We also check -- * that R4 is what it should be in such case. -+ * resulting in auxiliary alignment of 4. - */ -- {19, "R4_w=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=0,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"}, -- {19, "R5_w=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=0,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"}, -+ {18, "R5_w=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=0,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"}, - /* Constant offset is added to R5, resulting in - * reg->off of 14. - */ -- {20, "R5_w=pkt(id=2,off=14,r=0,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"}, -+ {19, "R5_w=pkt(id=2,off=14,r=0,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"}, - /* At the time the word size load is performed from R5, - * its total fixed offset is NET_IP_ALIGN + reg->off - * (14) which is 16. Then the variable offset is 4-byte - * aligned, so the total offset is 4-byte aligned and - * meets the load's requirements. - */ -- {24, "R4=pkt(id=2,off=18,r=18,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"}, -- {24, "R5=pkt(id=2,off=14,r=18,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"}, -+ {23, "R4=pkt(id=2,off=18,r=18,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"}, -+ {23, "R5=pkt(id=2,off=14,r=18,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"}, - /* Constant offset is added to R5 packet pointer, - * resulting in reg->off value of 14. - */ -- {27, "R5_w=pkt(id=0,off=14,r=8"}, -+ {26, "R5_w=pkt(id=0,off=14,r=8"}, - /* Variable offset is added to R5, resulting in a -- * variable offset of (4n). See comment for insn #19 -- * for R4 = R5 trick. -+ * variable offset of (4n). - */ -- {29, "R4_w=pkt(id=3,off=14,r=0,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"}, -- {29, "R5_w=pkt(id=3,off=14,r=0,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"}, -+ {27, "R5_w=pkt(id=3,off=14,r=0,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"}, - /* Constant is added to R5 again, setting reg->off to 18. */ -- {30, "R5_w=pkt(id=3,off=18,r=0,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"}, -+ {28, "R5_w=pkt(id=3,off=18,r=0,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"}, - /* And once more we add a variable; resulting var_off - * is still (4n), fixed offset is not changed. - * Also, we create a new reg->id. - */ -- {32, "R4_w=pkt(id=4,off=18,r=0,umax_value=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc)"}, -- {32, "R5_w=pkt(id=4,off=18,r=0,umax_value=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc)"}, -+ {29, "R5_w=pkt(id=4,off=18,r=0,umax_value=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc)"}, - /* At the time the word size load is performed from R5, - * its total fixed offset is NET_IP_ALIGN + reg->off (18) - * which is 20. Then the variable offset is (4n), so - * the total offset is 4-byte aligned and meets the - * load's requirements. - */ -- {35, "R4=pkt(id=4,off=22,r=22,umax_value=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc)"}, -- {35, "R5=pkt(id=4,off=18,r=22,umax_value=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc)"}, -+ {33, "R4=pkt(id=4,off=22,r=22,umax_value=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc)"}, -+ {33, "R5=pkt(id=4,off=18,r=22,umax_value=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc)"}, - }, - }, - { diff --git a/queue-5.10/series b/queue-5.10/series index 741fad196e..7ba2f5ebae 100644 --- a/queue-5.10/series +++ b/queue-5.10/series @@ -347,9 +347,6 @@ mm-huge_memory-fix-dereferencing-invalid-pmd-migration-entry.patch hwmon-occ-fix-p10-vrm-temp-sensors.patch rtc-test-fix-invalid-format-specifier.patch s390-pci-fix-__pcilg_mio_inuser-inline-assembly.patch -revert-selftests-bpf-make-test_align-selftest-more-robust.patch -revert-bpf-aggressively-forget-precise-markings-during-state-checkpointing.patch -revert-bpf-stop-setting-precise-in-current-state.patch -revert-bpf-allow-precision-tracking-for-programs-with-subprogs.patch perf-fix-sample-vs-do_exit.patch arm64-ptrace-fix-stack-out-of-bounds-read-in-regs_ge.patch +bpf-fix-precision-backtracking-instruction-iteration.patch |