On 2/3/26 23:53, [email protected] wrote:
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> +enum bpf_map_owner_match_type {
>> + BPF_MAP_OWNER_MATCH_FOR_INIT,
>> + BPF_MAP_OWNER_MATCH_FOR_UPDATE,
>> +};
>> +
>> static bool bpf_map_owner_matches(const struct bpf_map *map, const struct
>> bpf_prog *fp,
>> - enum bpf_prog_type prog_type)
>> + enum bpf_prog_type prog_type,
>> + enum bpf_map_owner_match_type match)
>> {
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> + switch (match) {
>> + case BPF_MAP_OWNER_MATCH_FOR_INIT:
>> + if (owner->kprobe_write_ctx != aux->kprobe_write_ctx)
>> + return false;
>> + break;
>> +
>> + case BPF_MAP_OWNER_MATCH_FOR_UPDATE:
>> + if (!owner->kprobe_write_ctx && aux->kprobe_write_ctx)
>> + return false;
>> + break;
>> + }
>
> In the v1 review, Alexei Starovoitov asked for strict conformance
> both ways rather than one-directional validation:
>
> "Don't be fancy. Require strict conformance both ways
> in *all* patches."
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/caadnvq+-v0-1i8_+cypk7g0cnv-2n8e9szv43ym3az197el...@mail.gmail.com/
>
> The BPF_MAP_OWNER_MATCH_FOR_UPDATE case still uses one-directional
> matching, rejecting only !owner->kprobe_write_ctx && aux->kprobe_write_ctx
> but allowing the reverse. The v2 changelog lists other Alexei comments
> as addressed but does not mention this one.
>
> Was this an intentional design choice, and if so, should the changelog
> note the disagreement?
>
This was intentional design choice.
My explanation in v1 should address his concern.
As his disagreement was not part of the patch series, should I note it
in changelog?
Thanks,
Leon
>
> ---
> 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/22582690876
>
> AI-authorship-score: medium
> AI-authorship-explanation: Confirmed LLM involvement in v1 development
> process (selftests called out by reviewer), but core code changes and v2
> revisions appear human-authored with genuine design engagement.
> issues-found: 1
> issue-severity-score: low
> issue-severity-explanation: Unaddressed maintainer review comment requesting
> symmetric matching in the UPDATE path; not a code bug or security concern.
