> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
[ ... ]
> + 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. Was this an intentional design choice, and
if so, should the changelog note the disagreement?
---
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/22630000544
