Re: [PATCH bpf v2 1/4] bpf, sockmap: Reject unhashed UDP sockets on sockmap update
From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Date: 2026-07-01 22:59:38
Also in:
bpf, linux-kselftest, lkml
On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 01:38:00PM +0200, Jakub Sitnicki wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2026 at 10:36 PM +02, Michal Luczaj wrote:quoted
UDP sockets get SOCK_RCU_FREE set when (auto-)bound. This means sk_is_refcounted(unbound) = true, while sk_is_refcounted(bound) = false. Because sockmap accepts unbound UDP sockets, a BPF program can increment a socket's refcount via lookup. If the socket is subsequently bound, the transition from unbound to bound causes bpf_sk_release() to skip the decrement of the refcount, causing a memory leak. unreferenced object 0xffff88810bc2eb40 (size 1984): comm "test_progs", pid 2451, jiffies 4295320596 hex dump (first 32 bytes): 7f 00 00 01 7f 00 00 01 d2 04 1b b7 04 d2 00 00 ................ 02 00 01 40 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ...@............ backtrace (crc bdee079d): kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x557/0x660 sk_prot_alloc+0x69/0x240 sk_alloc+0x30/0x460 inet_create+0x2ce/0xf80 __sock_create+0x25b/0x5c0 __sys_socket+0x119/0x1d0 __x64_sys_socket+0x72/0xd0 do_syscall_64+0xa1/0x5f0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e Instead of special-casing for refcounted sockets, reject unhashed UDP sockets during sockmap updates, as there is no benefit to supporting those. This effectively reverts the commit under Fixes, with two exceptions: 1. sock_map_sk_state_allowed() maintains a fall-through `return true`. 2. In the spirit of commit b8b8315e39ff ("bpf, sockmap: Remove unhash handler for BPF sockmap usage"), the proto::unhash BPF handler is not reintroduced. Historical note: this issue is related to commit 67312adc96b5 ("bpf: reject unhashed sockets in bpf_sk_assign"). Fixes: 0c48eefae712 ("sock_map: Lift socket state restriction for datagram sockets") Suggested-by: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@google.com> Signed-off-by: Michal Luczaj <redacted> ---Reviewed-by: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com>
For me as well. Reviewed-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>