On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 9:47 PM Leon Hwang <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 4/3/26 00:32, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 7:13 AM Leon Hwang <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > [...] > > >> @@ -6241,7 +6244,11 @@ static int __sys_bpf(enum bpf_cmd cmd, bpfptr_t > >> uattr, unsigned int size, > >> err = map_freeze(&attr); > >> break; > >> case BPF_PROG_LOAD: > >> - err = bpf_prog_load(&attr, uattr, size); > >> + if (from_user && size >= offsetofend(union bpf_attr, > >> log_true_size)) > >> + log_true_size = uattr.user + offsetof(union > >> bpf_attr, log_true_size); > > > > So you added 'from_user' gating because > > you replaced copy_to_bpfptr_offset() with copy_to_user()? > > This is a drastic change in behavior and you don't even talk about > > it in the commit log. > > You said "refactor". This is not a refactoring! > > > > This is v10. The common_attr feature is useful, but > > you really need to think harder about what your patches > > are doing. > > > > Refactoring should not introduce any functional changes. If a functional > change is involved, it should be factored out of the refactoring commit > into a separate commit with an explanation in the commit log. > > I'll add this to my self-review checklist. > > The intention of 'from_user' was to replace copy_to_bpfptr_offset() with > copy_to_user(), since the log is always copied to the user-space buffer > when the log level is not BPF_LOG_KERNEL in > kernel/bpf/log.c::bpf_verifier_vlog(). > > The 'from_user' gating will be dropped in v12 to keep this patch as pure > refactoring.
You were told multiple times to avoid copy pasting AI into your emails. Sorry, but this crosses the line for me. Your patches will be ignored for 2 weeks.
