+++ /dev/null
-From stable+bounces-155353-greg=kroah.com@vger.kernel.org Mon Jun 23 13:54:53 2025
-From: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com>
-Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 19:54:01 +0800
-Subject: Revert "bpf: aggressively forget precise markings during state checkpointing"
-To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
-Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>, Luiz Capitulino <luizcap@amazon.com>, Wei Wei <weiwei.danny@bytedance.com>, Yuchen Zhang <zhangyuchen.lcr@bytedance.com>
-Message-ID: <20250623115403.299-3-ziqianlu@bytedance.com>
-
-From: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com>
-
-This reverts commit 1952a4d5e4cf610336b9c9ab52b1fc4e42721cf3 which is
-commit 7a830b53c17bbadcf99f778f28aaaa4e6c41df5f upstream.
-
-The backport of bpf precision tracking related changes has caused bpf
-verifier to panic while loading some certain bpf prog so revert them.
-
-Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20250605070921.GA3795@bytedance/
-Reported-by: Wei Wei <weiwei.danny@bytedance.com>
-Signed-off-by: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com>
-Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
----
- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 37 -------------------------------------
- 1 file changed, 37 deletions(-)
-
---- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
-+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
-@@ -2053,31 +2053,6 @@ static void mark_all_scalars_precise(str
- }
- }
-
--static void mark_all_scalars_imprecise(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_verifier_state *st)
--{
-- struct bpf_func_state *func;
-- struct bpf_reg_state *reg;
-- int i, j;
--
-- for (i = 0; i <= st->curframe; i++) {
-- func = st->frame[i];
-- for (j = 0; j < BPF_REG_FP; j++) {
-- reg = &func->regs[j];
-- if (reg->type != SCALAR_VALUE)
-- continue;
-- reg->precise = false;
-- }
-- for (j = 0; j < func->allocated_stack / BPF_REG_SIZE; j++) {
-- if (!is_spilled_reg(&func->stack[j]))
-- continue;
-- reg = &func->stack[j].spilled_ptr;
-- if (reg->type != SCALAR_VALUE)
-- continue;
-- reg->precise = false;
-- }
-- }
--}
--
- /*
- * __mark_chain_precision() backtracks BPF program instruction sequence and
- * chain of verifier states making sure that register *regno* (if regno >= 0)
-@@ -2156,14 +2131,6 @@ static void mark_all_scalars_imprecise(s
- * be imprecise. If any child state does require this register to be precise,
- * we'll mark it precise later retroactively during precise markings
- * propagation from child state to parent states.
-- *
-- * Skipping precise marking setting in current state is a mild version of
-- * relying on the above observation. But we can utilize this property even
-- * more aggressively by proactively forgetting any precise marking in the
-- * current state (which we inherited from the parent state), right before we
-- * checkpoint it and branch off into new child state. This is done by
-- * mark_all_scalars_imprecise() to hopefully get more permissive and generic
-- * finalized states which help in short circuiting more future states.
- */
- static int __mark_chain_precision(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int frame, int regno,
- int spi)
-@@ -9928,10 +9895,6 @@ next:
- env->prev_jmps_processed = env->jmps_processed;
- env->prev_insn_processed = env->insn_processed;
-
-- /* forget precise markings we inherited, see __mark_chain_precision */
-- if (env->bpf_capable)
-- mark_all_scalars_imprecise(env, cur);
--
- /* add new state to the head of linked list */
- new = &new_sl->state;
- err = copy_verifier_state(new, cur);
+++ /dev/null
-From stable+bounces-155355-greg=kroah.com@vger.kernel.org Mon Jun 23 13:54:41 2025
-From: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com>
-Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 19:54:03 +0800
-Subject: Revert "bpf: allow precision tracking for programs with subprogs"
-To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
-Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>, Luiz Capitulino <luizcap@amazon.com>, Wei Wei <weiwei.danny@bytedance.com>, Yuchen Zhang <zhangyuchen.lcr@bytedance.com>
-Message-ID: <20250623115403.299-5-ziqianlu@bytedance.com>
-
-From: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com>
-
-This reverts commit 2474ec58b96d8a028b046beabdf49f5475eefcf8 which is
-commit be2ef8161572ec1973124ebc50f56dafc2925e07 upstream.
-
-The backport of bpf precision tracking related changes has caused bpf
-verifier to panic while loading some certain bpf prog so revert them.
-
-Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20250605070921.GA3795@bytedance/
-Reported-by: Wei Wei <weiwei.danny@bytedance.com>
-Signed-off-by: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com>
-Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
----
- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 35 +----------------------------------
- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 34 deletions(-)
-
---- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
-+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
-@@ -1359,7 +1359,7 @@ static void __mark_reg_unknown(const str
- reg->type = SCALAR_VALUE;
- reg->var_off = tnum_unknown;
- reg->frameno = 0;
-- reg->precise = !env->bpf_capable;
-+ reg->precise = env->subprog_cnt > 1 || !env->bpf_capable;
- __mark_reg_unbounded(reg);
- }
-
-@@ -2102,42 +2102,12 @@ static int __mark_chain_precision(struct
- return 0;
- if (!reg_mask && !stack_mask)
- return 0;
--
- for (;;) {
- DECLARE_BITMAP(mask, 64);
- u32 history = st->jmp_history_cnt;
-
- if (env->log.level & BPF_LOG_LEVEL)
- verbose(env, "last_idx %d first_idx %d\n", last_idx, first_idx);
--
-- if (last_idx < 0) {
-- /* we are at the entry into subprog, which
-- * is expected for global funcs, but only if
-- * requested precise registers are R1-R5
-- * (which are global func's input arguments)
-- */
-- if (st->curframe == 0 &&
-- st->frame[0]->subprogno > 0 &&
-- st->frame[0]->callsite == BPF_MAIN_FUNC &&
-- stack_mask == 0 && (reg_mask & ~0x3e) == 0) {
-- bitmap_from_u64(mask, reg_mask);
-- for_each_set_bit(i, mask, 32) {
-- reg = &st->frame[0]->regs[i];
-- if (reg->type != SCALAR_VALUE) {
-- reg_mask &= ~(1u << i);
-- continue;
-- }
-- reg->precise = true;
-- }
-- return 0;
-- }
--
-- verbose(env, "BUG backtracing func entry subprog %d reg_mask %x stack_mask %llx\n",
-- st->frame[0]->subprogno, reg_mask, stack_mask);
-- WARN_ONCE(1, "verifier backtracking bug");
-- return -EFAULT;
-- }
--
- for (i = last_idx;;) {
- if (skip_first) {
- err = 0;
-@@ -11896,9 +11866,6 @@ static int do_check_common(struct bpf_ve
- 0 /* frameno */,
- subprog);
-
-- state->first_insn_idx = env->subprog_info[subprog].start;
-- state->last_insn_idx = -1;
--
- regs = state->frame[state->curframe]->regs;
- if (subprog || env->prog->type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_EXT) {
- ret = btf_prepare_func_args(env, subprog, regs);
+++ /dev/null
-From stable+bounces-155354-greg=kroah.com@vger.kernel.org Mon Jun 23 13:55:13 2025
-From: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com>
-Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 19:54:02 +0800
-Subject: Revert "bpf: stop setting precise in current state"
-To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
-Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>, Luiz Capitulino <luizcap@amazon.com>, Wei Wei <weiwei.danny@bytedance.com>, Yuchen Zhang <zhangyuchen.lcr@bytedance.com>
-Message-ID: <20250623115403.299-4-ziqianlu@bytedance.com>
-
-From: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com>
-
-This reverts commit 7ca3e7459f4a5795e78b14390635879f534d9741 which is
-commit f63181b6ae79fd3b034cde641db774268c2c3acf upstream.
-
-The backport of bpf precision tracking related changes has caused bpf
-verifier to panic while loading some certain bpf prog so revert them.
-
-Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20250605070921.GA3795@bytedance/
-Reported-by: Wei Wei <weiwei.danny@bytedance.com>
-Signed-off-by: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com>
-Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
----
- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 103 +++++---------------------------------------------
- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 91 deletions(-)
-
---- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
-+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
-@@ -2028,11 +2028,8 @@ static void mark_all_scalars_precise(str
-
- /* big hammer: mark all scalars precise in this path.
- * pop_stack may still get !precise scalars.
-- * We also skip current state and go straight to first parent state,
-- * because precision markings in current non-checkpointed state are
-- * not needed. See why in the comment in __mark_chain_precision below.
- */
-- for (st = st->parent; st; st = st->parent) {
-+ for (; st; st = st->parent)
- for (i = 0; i <= st->curframe; i++) {
- func = st->frame[i];
- for (j = 0; j < BPF_REG_FP; j++) {
-@@ -2050,88 +2047,8 @@ static void mark_all_scalars_precise(str
- reg->precise = true;
- }
- }
-- }
- }
-
--/*
-- * __mark_chain_precision() backtracks BPF program instruction sequence and
-- * chain of verifier states making sure that register *regno* (if regno >= 0)
-- * and/or stack slot *spi* (if spi >= 0) are marked as precisely tracked
-- * SCALARS, as well as any other registers and slots that contribute to
-- * a tracked state of given registers/stack slots, depending on specific BPF
-- * assembly instructions (see backtrack_insns() for exact instruction handling
-- * logic). This backtracking relies on recorded jmp_history and is able to
-- * traverse entire chain of parent states. This process ends only when all the
-- * necessary registers/slots and their transitive dependencies are marked as
-- * precise.
-- *
-- * One important and subtle aspect is that precise marks *do not matter* in
-- * the currently verified state (current state). It is important to understand
-- * why this is the case.
-- *
-- * First, note that current state is the state that is not yet "checkpointed",
-- * i.e., it is not yet put into env->explored_states, and it has no children
-- * states as well. It's ephemeral, and can end up either a) being discarded if
-- * compatible explored state is found at some point or BPF_EXIT instruction is
-- * reached or b) checkpointed and put into env->explored_states, branching out
-- * into one or more children states.
-- *
-- * In the former case, precise markings in current state are completely
-- * ignored by state comparison code (see regsafe() for details). Only
-- * checkpointed ("old") state precise markings are important, and if old
-- * state's register/slot is precise, regsafe() assumes current state's
-- * register/slot as precise and checks value ranges exactly and precisely. If
-- * states turn out to be compatible, current state's necessary precise
-- * markings and any required parent states' precise markings are enforced
-- * after the fact with propagate_precision() logic, after the fact. But it's
-- * important to realize that in this case, even after marking current state
-- * registers/slots as precise, we immediately discard current state. So what
-- * actually matters is any of the precise markings propagated into current
-- * state's parent states, which are always checkpointed (due to b) case above).
-- * As such, for scenario a) it doesn't matter if current state has precise
-- * markings set or not.
-- *
-- * Now, for the scenario b), checkpointing and forking into child(ren)
-- * state(s). Note that before current state gets to checkpointing step, any
-- * processed instruction always assumes precise SCALAR register/slot
-- * knowledge: if precise value or range is useful to prune jump branch, BPF
-- * verifier takes this opportunity enthusiastically. Similarly, when
-- * register's value is used to calculate offset or memory address, exact
-- * knowledge of SCALAR range is assumed, checked, and enforced. So, similar to
-- * what we mentioned above about state comparison ignoring precise markings
-- * during state comparison, BPF verifier ignores and also assumes precise
-- * markings *at will* during instruction verification process. But as verifier
-- * assumes precision, it also propagates any precision dependencies across
-- * parent states, which are not yet finalized, so can be further restricted
-- * based on new knowledge gained from restrictions enforced by their children
-- * states. This is so that once those parent states are finalized, i.e., when
-- * they have no more active children state, state comparison logic in
-- * is_state_visited() would enforce strict and precise SCALAR ranges, if
-- * required for correctness.
-- *
-- * To build a bit more intuition, note also that once a state is checkpointed,
-- * the path we took to get to that state is not important. This is crucial
-- * property for state pruning. When state is checkpointed and finalized at
-- * some instruction index, it can be correctly and safely used to "short
-- * circuit" any *compatible* state that reaches exactly the same instruction
-- * index. I.e., if we jumped to that instruction from a completely different
-- * code path than original finalized state was derived from, it doesn't
-- * matter, current state can be discarded because from that instruction
-- * forward having a compatible state will ensure we will safely reach the
-- * exit. States describe preconditions for further exploration, but completely
-- * forget the history of how we got here.
-- *
-- * This also means that even if we needed precise SCALAR range to get to
-- * finalized state, but from that point forward *that same* SCALAR register is
-- * never used in a precise context (i.e., it's precise value is not needed for
-- * correctness), it's correct and safe to mark such register as "imprecise"
-- * (i.e., precise marking set to false). This is what we rely on when we do
-- * not set precise marking in current state. If no child state requires
-- * precision for any given SCALAR register, it's safe to dictate that it can
-- * be imprecise. If any child state does require this register to be precise,
-- * we'll mark it precise later retroactively during precise markings
-- * propagation from child state to parent states.
-- */
- static int __mark_chain_precision(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int frame, int regno,
- int spi)
- {
-@@ -2149,10 +2066,6 @@ static int __mark_chain_precision(struct
- if (!env->bpf_capable)
- return 0;
-
-- /* Do sanity checks against current state of register and/or stack
-- * slot, but don't set precise flag in current state, as precision
-- * tracking in the current state is unnecessary.
-- */
- func = st->frame[frame];
- if (regno >= 0) {
- reg = &func->regs[regno];
-@@ -2160,7 +2073,11 @@ static int __mark_chain_precision(struct
- WARN_ONCE(1, "backtracing misuse");
- return -EFAULT;
- }
-- new_marks = true;
-+ if (!reg->precise)
-+ new_marks = true;
-+ else
-+ reg_mask = 0;
-+ reg->precise = true;
- }
-
- while (spi >= 0) {
-@@ -2173,7 +2090,11 @@ static int __mark_chain_precision(struct
- stack_mask = 0;
- break;
- }
-- new_marks = true;
-+ if (!reg->precise)
-+ new_marks = true;
-+ else
-+ stack_mask = 0;
-+ reg->precise = true;
- break;
- }
-
-@@ -9358,7 +9279,7 @@ static bool regsafe(struct bpf_verifier_
- if (env->explore_alu_limits)
- return false;
- if (rcur->type == SCALAR_VALUE) {
-- if (!rold->precise)
-+ if (!rold->precise && !rcur->precise)
- return true;
- /* new val must satisfy old val knowledge */
- return range_within(rold, rcur) &&
+++ /dev/null
-From stable+bounces-155352-greg=kroah.com@vger.kernel.org Mon Jun 23 13:54:48 2025
-From: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com>
-Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 19:54:00 +0800
-Subject: Revert "selftests/bpf: make test_align selftest more robust"
-To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
-Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>, Luiz Capitulino <luizcap@amazon.com>, Wei Wei <weiwei.danny@bytedance.com>, Yuchen Zhang <zhangyuchen.lcr@bytedance.com>
-Message-ID: <20250623115403.299-2-ziqianlu@bytedance.com>
-
-From: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com>
-
-This reverts commit 4af2d9ddb7e78f97c23f709827e5075c6d866e34 which is
-commit 4f999b767769b76378c3616c624afd6f4bb0d99f upstream.
-
-The backport of bpf precision tracking related changes has caused bpf
-verifier to panic while loading some certain bpf prog so revert them.
-
-Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20250605070921.GA3795@bytedance/
-Reported-by: Wei Wei <weiwei.danny@bytedance.com>
-Signed-off-by: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com>
-Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
----
- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/align.c | 36 +++++++++----------------
- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
-
---- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/align.c
-+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/align.c
-@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
- #include <test_progs.h>
-
- #define MAX_INSNS 512
--#define MAX_MATCHES 24
-+#define MAX_MATCHES 16
-
- struct bpf_reg_match {
- unsigned int line;
-@@ -267,7 +267,6 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
- */
- BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_5, BPF_REG_2),
- BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_5, BPF_REG_6),
-- BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_4, BPF_REG_5),
- BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_5, 14),
- BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_4, BPF_REG_5),
- BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_4, 4),
-@@ -281,7 +280,6 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
- BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_5, BPF_REG_2),
- BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_5, 14),
- BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_5, BPF_REG_6),
-- BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_4, BPF_REG_5),
- BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_5, 4),
- BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_5, BPF_REG_6),
- BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_4, BPF_REG_5),
-@@ -313,52 +311,44 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
- {15, "R4=pkt(id=1,off=18,r=18,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"},
- {15, "R5=pkt(id=1,off=14,r=18,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"},
- /* Variable offset is added to R5 packet pointer,
-- * resulting in auxiliary alignment of 4. To avoid BPF
-- * verifier's precision backtracking logging
-- * interfering we also have a no-op R4 = R5
-- * instruction to validate R5 state. We also check
-- * that R4 is what it should be in such case.
-+ * resulting in auxiliary alignment of 4.
- */
-- {19, "R4_w=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=0,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"},
-- {19, "R5_w=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=0,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"},
-+ {18, "R5_w=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=0,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"},
- /* Constant offset is added to R5, resulting in
- * reg->off of 14.
- */
-- {20, "R5_w=pkt(id=2,off=14,r=0,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"},
-+ {19, "R5_w=pkt(id=2,off=14,r=0,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"},
- /* At the time the word size load is performed from R5,
- * its total fixed offset is NET_IP_ALIGN + reg->off
- * (14) which is 16. Then the variable offset is 4-byte
- * aligned, so the total offset is 4-byte aligned and
- * meets the load's requirements.
- */
-- {24, "R4=pkt(id=2,off=18,r=18,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"},
-- {24, "R5=pkt(id=2,off=14,r=18,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"},
-+ {23, "R4=pkt(id=2,off=18,r=18,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"},
-+ {23, "R5=pkt(id=2,off=14,r=18,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"},
- /* Constant offset is added to R5 packet pointer,
- * resulting in reg->off value of 14.
- */
-- {27, "R5_w=pkt(id=0,off=14,r=8"},
-+ {26, "R5_w=pkt(id=0,off=14,r=8"},
- /* Variable offset is added to R5, resulting in a
-- * variable offset of (4n). See comment for insn #19
-- * for R4 = R5 trick.
-+ * variable offset of (4n).
- */
-- {29, "R4_w=pkt(id=3,off=14,r=0,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"},
-- {29, "R5_w=pkt(id=3,off=14,r=0,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"},
-+ {27, "R5_w=pkt(id=3,off=14,r=0,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"},
- /* Constant is added to R5 again, setting reg->off to 18. */
-- {30, "R5_w=pkt(id=3,off=18,r=0,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"},
-+ {28, "R5_w=pkt(id=3,off=18,r=0,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"},
- /* And once more we add a variable; resulting var_off
- * is still (4n), fixed offset is not changed.
- * Also, we create a new reg->id.
- */
-- {32, "R4_w=pkt(id=4,off=18,r=0,umax_value=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc)"},
-- {32, "R5_w=pkt(id=4,off=18,r=0,umax_value=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc)"},
-+ {29, "R5_w=pkt(id=4,off=18,r=0,umax_value=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc)"},
- /* At the time the word size load is performed from R5,
- * its total fixed offset is NET_IP_ALIGN + reg->off (18)
- * which is 20. Then the variable offset is (4n), so
- * the total offset is 4-byte aligned and meets the
- * load's requirements.
- */
-- {35, "R4=pkt(id=4,off=22,r=22,umax_value=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc)"},
-- {35, "R5=pkt(id=4,off=18,r=22,umax_value=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc)"},
-+ {33, "R4=pkt(id=4,off=22,r=22,umax_value=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc)"},
-+ {33, "R5=pkt(id=4,off=18,r=22,umax_value=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc)"},
- },
- },
- {
hwmon-occ-fix-p10-vrm-temp-sensors.patch
rtc-test-fix-invalid-format-specifier.patch
s390-pci-fix-__pcilg_mio_inuser-inline-assembly.patch
-revert-selftests-bpf-make-test_align-selftest-more-robust.patch
-revert-bpf-aggressively-forget-precise-markings-during-state-checkpointing.patch
-revert-bpf-stop-setting-precise-in-current-state.patch
-revert-bpf-allow-precision-tracking-for-programs-with-subprogs.patch
perf-fix-sample-vs-do_exit.patch
arm64-ptrace-fix-stack-out-of-bounds-read-in-regs_ge.patch
+bpf-fix-precision-backtracking-instruction-iteration.patch
projects / thirdparty / kernel / stable-queue.git / commitdiff
