> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c b/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
> index 4f495dcbf670c..c4683d0e4c149 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
> @@ -1056,12 +1056,12 @@ static void pcpu_init_value(struct bpf_htab *htab, 
> void __percpu *pptr,
>        * known initial values for cpus other than current one
>        * (onallcpus=false always when coming from bpf prog).
>        */
> -     if (!onallcpus) {
> -             int current_cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
> +     if (!onallcpus || (map_flags & BPF_F_CPU)) {
> +             int init_cpu = onallcpus ? map_flags >> 32 : 
> raw_smp_processor_id();
>               int cpu;
>
>               for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> -                     if (cpu == current_cpu)
> +                     if (cpu == init_cpu)
>                               copy_map_value(&htab->map, per_cpu_ptr(pptr, 
> cpu), value);
>                       else /* Since elem is preallocated, we cannot touch 
> special fields */
>                               zero_map_value(&htab->map, per_cpu_ptr(pptr, 
> cpu));

Does the block comment above this condition need updating? It says the value
goes to the "current one" and explains the whole branch with "onallcpus=false
always when coming from bpf prog."

With the patch, the branch is also taken when onallcpus is true and BPF_F_CPU
is set. In that case:

    if (!onallcpus || (map_flags & BPF_F_CPU)) {
        int init_cpu = onallcpus ? map_flags >> 32 : raw_smp_processor_id();

the value goes to the CPU named in map_flags >> 32, while the current CPU
might be one of the CPUs that gets zero-filled.

The rationale also seems specific to the BPF program case. For BPF_F_CPU
updates there is no BPF program involved (htab_map_check_update_flags()
returns -EINVAL for !onallcpus && map_flags > BPF_EXIST), so the reason to
zero the other slots is that the per-cpu area is recycled and must not hand
back the previous tenant's values, as the commit message explains.

Could the comment be updated to cover both entry conditions?


---
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/35502758763

Reply via email to