> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c b/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c > index 1eeb31c5b..241f11d4d 100644 > --- a/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c > +++ b/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c
[ ... ] > @@ -398,18 +405,18 @@ int bpf_percpu_array_update(struct bpf_map *map, void > *key, void *value, > struct bpf_array *array = container_of(map, struct bpf_array, map); > u32 index = *(u32 *)key; > void __percpu *pptr; > - int cpu, off = 0; > + void *ptr, *val; > u32 size; > + int cpu; > > - if (unlikely(map_flags > BPF_EXIST)) > - /* unknown flags */ > + if (unlikely(map_flags & BPF_F_LOCK)) > return -EINVAL; > > if (unlikely(index >= array->map.max_entries)) > /* all elements were pre-allocated, cannot insert a new one */ > return -E2BIG; > > - if (unlikely(map_flags == BPF_NOEXIST)) > + if (unlikely(map_flags & BPF_NOEXIST)) > /* all elements already exist */ > return -EEXIST; This isn't a bug, but the change from equality check to bit test might allow confusing flag combinations. The old code rejected map_flags > 2, which prevented BPF_NOEXIST | BPF_EXIST (flags=3) entirely. With the new bit test, userspace can pass both flags and BPF_NOEXIST takes precedence. Should bpf_map_check_op_flags() validate mutual exclusivity of BPF_NOEXIST and BPF_EXIST, similar to how it validates BPF_F_CPU and BPF_F_ALL_CPUS at include/linux/bpf.h:3858? --- AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug. See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/19674301388
