linux-stable.git/kernel/bpf/verifier.c, branch v6.6.78

Revert "bpf: support non-r10 register spill/fill to/from stack in precision tracking"

2025-01-09T12:32:06+00:00

Revert commit ecc2aeeaa08a355d84d3ca9c3d2512399a194f29 which is commit
41f6f64e6999a837048b1bd13a2f8742964eca6b upstream.

Levi reported that commit ecc2aeeaa08a ("bpf: support non-r10 register
spill/fill to/from stack in precision tracking") cause eBPF program that
previously loads successfully in stable 6.6 now fails to load, when the
same program also loads successfully in v6.13-rc5.

Revert ecc2aeeaa08a until the problem has been probably figured out and
resolved.

Fixes: ecc2aeeaa08a ("bpf: support non-r10 register spill/fill to/from stack in precision tracking")
Reported-by: Levi Zim 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/stable/MEYP282MB2312C3C8801476C4F262D6E1C6162@MEYP282MB2312.AUSP282.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM/
Signed-off-by: Shung-Hsi Yu 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: sync_linked_regs() must preserve subreg_def

2024-12-19T17:11:35+00:00

commit e9bd9c498cb0f5843996dbe5cbce7a1836a83c70 upstream.

Range propagation must not affect subreg_def marks, otherwise the
following example is rewritten by verifier incorrectly when
BPF_F_TEST_RND_HI32 flag is set:

  0: call bpf_ktime_get_ns                   call bpf_ktime_get_ns
  1: r0 &= 0x7fffffff       after verifier   r0 &= 0x7fffffff
  2: w1 = w0                rewrites         w1 = w0
  3: if w0 < 10 goto +0     -------------->  r11 = 0x2f5674a6     (r)
  4: r1 >>= 32                               r11 <<= 32           (r)
  5: r0 = r1                                 r1 |= r11            (r)
  6: exit;                                   if w0 < 0xa goto pc+0
                                             r1 >>= 32
                                             r0 = r1
                                             exit

(or zero extension of w1 at (2) is missing for architectures that
 require zero extension for upper register half).

The following happens w/o this patch:
- r0 is marked as not a subreg at (0);
- w1 is marked as subreg at (2);
- w1 subreg_def is overridden at (3) by copy_register_state();
- w1 is read at (5) but mark_insn_zext() does not mark (2)
  for zero extension, because w1 subreg_def is not set;
- because of BPF_F_TEST_RND_HI32 flag verifier inserts random
  value for hi32 bits of (2) (marked (r));
- this random value is read at (5).

Fixes: 75748837b7e5 ("bpf: Propagate scalar ranges through register assignments.")
Reported-by: Lonial Con 
Signed-off-by: Lonial Con 
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman 
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko 
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann 
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann 
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/7e2aa30a62d740db182c170fdd8f81c596df280d.camel@gmail.com
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240924210844.1758441-1-eddyz87@gmail.com
[ shung-hsi.yu: sync_linked_regs() was called find_equal_scalars() before commit
  4bf79f9be434 ("bpf: Track equal scalars history on per-instruction level"), and
  modification is done because there is only a single call to
  copy_register_state() before commit 98d7ca374ba4 ("bpf: Track delta between
  "linked" registers."). ]
Signed-off-by: Shung-Hsi Yu 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

bpf: Fix narrow scalar spill onto 64-bit spilled scalar slots

2024-12-14T18:59:49+00:00

[ Upstream commit b0e66977dc072906bb76555fb1a64261d7f63d0f ]

When CAP_PERFMON and CAP_SYS_ADMIN (allow_ptr_leaks) are disabled, the
verifier aims to reject partial overwrite on an 8-byte stack slot that
contains a spilled pointer.

However, in such a scenario, it rejects all partial stack overwrites as
long as the targeted stack slot is a spilled register, because it does
not check if the stack slot is a spilled pointer.

Incomplete checks will result in the rejection of valid programs, which
spill narrower scalar values onto scalar slots, as shown below.

0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
; asm volatile ( @ repro.bpf.c:679
0: (7a) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = 1          ; R10=fp0 fp-8_w=1
1: (62) *(u32 *)(r10 -8) = 1
attempt to corrupt spilled pointer on stack
processed 2 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 0 total_states 0 peak_states 0 mark_read 0.

Fix this by expanding the check to not consider spilled scalar registers
when rejecting the write into the stack.

Previous discussion on this patch is at link [0].

  [0]: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240403202409.2615469-1-tao.lyu@epfl.ch

Fixes: ab125ed3ec1c ("bpf: fix check for attempt to corrupt spilled pointer")
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman 
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko 
Signed-off-by: Tao Lyu 
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241204044757.1483141-3-memxor@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov 
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

bpf: support non-r10 register spill/fill to/from stack in precision tracking

2024-12-09T09:31:42+00:00

[ Upstream commit 41f6f64e6999a837048b1bd13a2f8742964eca6b ]

Use instruction (jump) history to record instructions that performed
register spill/fill to/from stack, regardless if this was done through
read-only r10 register, or any other register after copying r10 into it
*and* potentially adjusting offset.

To make this work reliably, we push extra per-instruction flags into
instruction history, encoding stack slot index (spi) and stack frame
number in extra 10 bit flags we take away from prev_idx in instruction
history. We don't touch idx field for maximum performance, as it's
checked most frequently during backtracking.

This change removes basically the last remaining practical limitation of
precision backtracking logic in BPF verifier. It fixes known
deficiencies, but also opens up new opportunities to reduce number of
verified states, explored in the subsequent patches.

There are only three differences in selftests' BPF object files
according to veristat, all in the positive direction (less states).

File                                    Program        Insns (A)  Insns (B)  Insns  (DIFF)  States (A)  States (B)  States (DIFF)
--------------------------------------  -------------  ---------  ---------  -------------  ----------  ----------  -------------
test_cls_redirect_dynptr.bpf.linked3.o  cls_redirect        2987       2864  -123 (-4.12%)         240         231    -9 (-3.75%)
xdp_synproxy_kern.bpf.linked3.o         syncookie_tc       82848      82661  -187 (-0.23%)        5107        5073   -34 (-0.67%)
xdp_synproxy_kern.bpf.linked3.o         syncookie_xdp      85116      84964  -152 (-0.18%)        5162        5130   -32 (-0.62%)

Note, I avoided renaming jmp_history to more generic insn_hist to
minimize number of lines changed and potential merge conflicts between
bpf and bpf-next trees.

Notice also cur_hist_entry pointer reset to NULL at the beginning of
instruction verification loop. This pointer avoids the problem of
relying on last jump history entry's insn_idx to determine whether we
already have entry for current instruction or not. It can happen that we
added jump history entry because current instruction is_jmp_point(), but
also we need to add instruction flags for stack access. In this case, we
don't want to entries, so we need to reuse last added entry, if it is
present.

Relying on insn_idx comparison has the same ambiguity problem as the one
that was fixed recently in [0], so we avoid that.

  [0] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20231110002638.4168352-3-andrii@kernel.org/

Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman 
Reported-by: Tao Lyu 
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231205184248.1502704-2-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov 
Signed-off-by: Shung-Hsi Yu 
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

bpf: use kvzmalloc to allocate BPF verifier environment

2024-11-17T14:08:56+00:00

[ Upstream commit 434247637c66e1be2bc71a9987d4c3f0d8672387 ]

The kzmalloc call in bpf_check can fail when memory is very fragmented,
which in turn can lead to an OOM kill.

Use kvzmalloc to fall back to vmalloc when memory is too fragmented to
allocate an order 3 sized bpf verifier environment.

Admittedly this is not a very common case, and only happens on systems
where memory has already been squeezed close to the limit, but this does
not seem like much of a hot path, and it's a simple enough fix.

Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel 
Reviewed-by: Shakeel Butt 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241008170735.16766766@imladris.surriel.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov 
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

bpf: Force checkpoint when jmp history is too long

2024-11-08T15:28:18+00:00

[ Upstream commit aa30eb3260b2dea3a68d3c42a39f9a09c5e99cee ]

A specifically crafted program might trick verifier into growing very
long jump history within a single bpf_verifier_state instance.
Very long jump history makes mark_chain_precision() unreasonably slow,
especially in case if verifier processes a loop.

Mitigate this by forcing new state in is_state_visited() in case if
current state's jump history is too long.

Use same constant as in `skip_inf_loop_check`, but multiply it by
arbitrarily chosen value 2 to account for jump history containing not
only information about jumps, but also information about stack access.

For an example of problematic program consider the code below,
w/o this patch the example is processed by verifier for ~15 minutes,
before failing to allocate big-enough chunk for jmp_history.

    0: r7 = *(u16 *)(r1 +0);"
    1: r7 += 0x1ab064b9;"
    2: if r7 & 0x702000 goto 1b;
    3: r7 &= 0x1ee60e;"
    4: r7 += r1;"
    5: if r7 s> 0x37d2 goto +0;"
    6: r0 = 0;"
    7: exit;"

Perf profiling shows that most of the time is spent in
mark_chain_precision() ~95%.

The easiest way to explain why this program causes problems is to
apply the following patch:

    diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
    index 0c216e71cec7..4b4823961abe 100644
    \--- a/include/linux/bpf.h
    \+++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
    \@@ -1926,7 +1926,7 @@ struct bpf_array {
            };
     };

    -#define BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_INSNS      1000000 /* yes. 1M insns */
    +#define BPF_COMPLEXITY_LIMIT_INSNS      256 /* yes. 1M insns */
     #define MAX_TAIL_CALL_CNT 33

     /* Maximum number of loops for bpf_loop and bpf_iter_num.
    diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
    index f514247ba8ba..75e88be3bb3e 100644
    \--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
    \+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
    \@@ -18024,8 +18024,13 @@ static int is_state_visited(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx)
     skip_inf_loop_check:
                            if (!force_new_state &&
                                env->jmps_processed - env->prev_jmps_processed < 20 &&
    -                           env->insn_processed - env->prev_insn_processed < 100)
    +                           env->insn_processed - env->prev_insn_processed < 100) {
    +                               verbose(env, "is_state_visited: suppressing checkpoint at %d, %d jmps processed, cur->jmp_history_cnt is %d\n",
    +                                       env->insn_idx,
    +                                       env->jmps_processed - env->prev_jmps_processed,
    +                                       cur->jmp_history_cnt);
                                    add_new_state = false;
    +                       }
                            goto miss;
                    }
                    /* If sl->state is a part of a loop and this loop's entry is a part of
    \@@ -18142,6 +18147,9 @@ static int is_state_visited(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx)
            if (!add_new_state)
                    return 0;

    +       verbose(env, "is_state_visited: new checkpoint at %d, resetting env->jmps_processed\n",
    +               env->insn_idx);
    +
            /* There were no equivalent states, remember the current one.
             * Technically the current state is not proven to be safe yet,
             * but it will either reach outer most bpf_exit (which means it's safe)

And observe verification log:

    ...
    is_state_visited: new checkpoint at 5, resetting env->jmps_processed
    5: R1=ctx() R7=ctx(...)
    5: (65) if r7 s> 0x37d2 goto pc+0     ; R7=ctx(...)
    6: (b7) r0 = 0                        ; R0_w=0
    7: (95) exit

    from 5 to 6: R1=ctx() R7=ctx(...) R10=fp0
    6: R1=ctx() R7=ctx(...) R10=fp0
    6: (b7) r0 = 0                        ; R0_w=0
    7: (95) exit
    is_state_visited: suppressing checkpoint at 1, 3 jmps processed, cur->jmp_history_cnt is 74

    from 2 to 1: R1=ctx() R7_w=scalar(...) R10=fp0
    1: R1=ctx() R7_w=scalar(...) R10=fp0
    1: (07) r7 += 447767737
    is_state_visited: suppressing checkpoint at 2, 3 jmps processed, cur->jmp_history_cnt is 75
    2: R7_w=scalar(...)
    2: (45) if r7 & 0x702000 goto pc-2
    ... mark_precise 152 steps for r7 ...
    2: R7_w=scalar(...)
    is_state_visited: suppressing checkpoint at 1, 4 jmps processed, cur->jmp_history_cnt is 75
    1: (07) r7 += 447767737
    is_state_visited: suppressing checkpoint at 2, 4 jmps processed, cur->jmp_history_cnt is 76
    2: R7_w=scalar(...)
    2: (45) if r7 & 0x702000 goto pc-2
    ...
    BPF program is too large. Processed 257 insn

The log output shows that checkpoint at label (1) is never created,
because it is suppressed by `skip_inf_loop_check` logic:
a. When 'if' at (2) is processed it pushes a state with insn_idx (1)
   onto stack and proceeds to (3);
b. At (5) checkpoint is created, and this resets
   env->{jmps,insns}_processed.
c. Verification proceeds and reaches `exit`;
d. State saved at step (a) is popped from stack and is_state_visited()
   considers if checkpoint needs to be added, but because
   env->{jmps,insns}_processed had been just reset at step (b)
   the `skip_inf_loop_check` logic forces `add_new_state` to false.
e. Verifier proceeds with current state, which slowly accumulates
   more and more entries in the jump history.

The accumulation of entries in the jump history is a problem because
of two factors:
- it eventually exhausts memory available for kmalloc() allocation;
- mark_chain_precision() traverses the jump history of a state,
  meaning that if `r7` is marked precise, verifier would iterate
  ever growing jump history until parent state boundary is reached.

(note: the log also shows a REG INVARIANTS VIOLATION warning
       upon jset processing, but that's another bug to fix).

With this patch applied, the example above is rejected by verifier
under 1s of time, reaching 1M instructions limit.

The program is a simplified reproducer from syzbot report.
Previous discussion could be found at [1].
The patch does not cause any changes in verification performance,
when tested on selftests from veristat.cfg and cilium programs taken
from [2].

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20241009021254.2805446-1-eddyz87@gmail.com/
[2] https://github.com/anakryiko/cilium

Changelog:
- v1 -> v2:
  - moved patch to bpf tree;
  - moved force_new_state variable initialization after declaration and
    shortened the comment.
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20241018020307.1766906-1-eddyz87@gmail.com/

Fixes: 2589726d12a1 ("bpf: introduce bounded loops")
Reported-by: syzbot+7e46cdef14bf496a3ab4@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman 
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko 
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20241029172641.1042523-1-eddyz87@gmail.com

Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/670429f6.050a0220.49194.0517.GAE@google.com/
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

bpf: Fix overloading of MEM_UNINIT's meaning

2024-11-01T00:58:30+00:00

[ Upstream commit 8ea607330a39184f51737c6ae706db7fdca7628e ]

Lonial reported an issue in the BPF verifier where check_mem_size_reg()
has the following code:

    if (!tnum_is_const(reg->var_off))
        /* For unprivileged variable accesses, disable raw
         * mode so that the program is required to
         * initialize all the memory that the helper could
         * just partially fill up.
         */
         meta = NULL;

This means that writes are not checked when the register containing the
size of the passed buffer has not a fixed size. Through this bug, a BPF
program can write to a map which is marked as read-only, for example,
.rodata global maps.

The problem is that MEM_UNINIT's initial meaning that "the passed buffer
to the BPF helper does not need to be initialized" which was added back
in commit 435faee1aae9 ("bpf, verifier: add ARG_PTR_TO_RAW_STACK type")
got overloaded over time with "the passed buffer is being written to".

The problem however is that checks such as the above which were added later
via 06c1c049721a ("bpf: allow helpers access to variable memory") set meta
to NULL in order force the user to always initialize the passed buffer to
the helper. Due to the current double meaning of MEM_UNINIT, this bypasses
verifier write checks to the memory (not boundary checks though) and only
assumes the latter memory is read instead.

Fix this by reverting MEM_UNINIT back to its original meaning, and having
MEM_WRITE as an annotation to BPF helpers in order to then trigger the
BPF verifier checks for writing to memory.

Some notes: check_arg_pair_ok() ensures that for ARG_CONST_SIZE{,_OR_ZERO}
we can access fn->arg_type[arg - 1] since it must contain a preceding
ARG_PTR_TO_MEM. For check_mem_reg() the meta argument can be removed
altogether since we do check both BPF_READ and BPF_WRITE. Same for the
equivalent check_kfunc_mem_size_reg().

Fixes: 7b3552d3f9f6 ("bpf: Reject writes for PTR_TO_MAP_KEY in check_helper_mem_access")
Fixes: 97e6d7dab1ca ("bpf: Check PTR_TO_MEM | MEM_RDONLY in check_helper_mem_access")
Fixes: 15baa55ff5b0 ("bpf/verifier: allow all functions to read user provided context")
Reported-by: Lonial Con 
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann 
Acked-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241021152809.33343-2-daniel@iogearbox.net
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov 
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

bpf: Simplify checking size of helper accesses

2024-11-01T00:58:29+00:00

[ Upstream commit 8a021e7fa10576eeb3938328f39bbf98fe7d4715 ]

This patch simplifies the verification of size arguments associated to
pointer arguments to helpers and kfuncs. Many helpers take a pointer
argument followed by the size of the memory access performed to be
performed through that pointer. Before this patch, the handling of the
size argument in check_mem_size_reg() was confusing and wasteful: if the
size register's lower bound was 0, then the verification was done twice:
once considering the size of the access to be the lower-bound of the
respective argument, and once considering the upper bound (even if the
two are the same). The upper bound checking is a super-set of the
lower-bound checking(*), except: the only point of the lower-bound check
is to handle the case where zero-sized-accesses are explicitly not
allowed and the lower-bound is zero. This static condition is now
checked explicitly, replacing a much more complex, expensive and
confusing verification call to check_helper_mem_access().

Error messages change in this patch. Before, messages about illegal
zero-size accesses depended on the type of the pointer and on other
conditions, and sometimes the message was plain wrong: in some tests
that changed you'll see that the old message was something like "R1 min
value is outside of the allowed memory range", where R1 is the pointer
register; the error was wrongly claiming that the pointer was bad
instead of the size being bad. Other times the information that the size
came for a register with a possible range of values was wrong, and the
error presented the size as a fixed zero. Now the errors refer to the
right register. However, the old error messages did contain useful
information about the pointer register which is now lost; recovering
this information was deemed not important enough.

(*) Besides standing to reason that the checks for a bigger size access
are a super-set of the checks for a smaller size access, I have also
mechanically verified this by reading the code for all types of
pointers. I could convince myself that it's true for all but
PTR_TO_BTF_ID (check_ptr_to_btf_access). There, simply looking
line-by-line does not immediately prove what we want. If anyone has any
qualms, let me know.

Signed-off-by: Andrei Matei 
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko 
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20231221232225.568730-2-andreimatei1@gmail.com
Stable-dep-of: 8ea607330a39 ("bpf: Fix overloading of MEM_UNINIT's meaning")
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

bpf: Fix truncation bug in coerce_reg_to_size_sx()

2024-11-01T00:58:22+00:00

[ Upstream commit ae67b9fb8c4e981e929a665dcaa070f4b05ebdb4 ]

coerce_reg_to_size_sx() updates the register state after a sign-extension
operation. However, there's a bug in the assignment order of the unsigned
min/max values, leading to incorrect truncation:

  0: (85) call bpf_get_prandom_u32#7    ; R0_w=scalar()
  1: (57) r0 &= 1                       ; R0_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=1,var_off=(0x0; 0x1))
  2: (07) r0 += 254                     ; R0_w=scalar(smin=umin=smin32=umin32=254,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=255,var_off=(0xfe; 0x1))
  3: (bf) r0 = (s8)r0                   ; R0_w=scalar(smin=smin32=-2,smax=smax32=-1,umin=umin32=0xfffffffe,umax=0xffffffff,var_off=(0xfffffffffffffffe; 0x1))

In the current implementation, the unsigned 32-bit min/max values
(u32_min_value and u32_max_value) are assigned directly from the 64-bit
signed min/max values (s64_min and s64_max):

  reg->umin_value = reg->u32_min_value = s64_min;
  reg->umax_value = reg->u32_max_value = s64_max;

Due to the chain assigmnent, this is equivalent to:

  reg->u32_min_value = s64_min;  // Unintended truncation
  reg->umin_value = reg->u32_min_value;
  reg->u32_max_value = s64_max;  // Unintended truncation
  reg->umax_value = reg->u32_max_value;

Fixes: 1f9a1ea821ff ("bpf: Support new sign-extension load insns")
Reported-by: Shung-Hsi Yu 
Reported-by: Zac Ecob 
Signed-off-by: Dimitar Kanaliev 
Acked-by: Yonghong Song 
Reviewed-by: Shung-Hsi Yu 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241014121155.92887-2-dimitar.kanaliev@siteground.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov 
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

bpf: fix kfunc btf caching for modules

2024-11-01T00:58:19+00:00

[ Upstream commit 6cb86a0fdece87e126323ec1bb19deb16a52aedf ]

The verifier contains a cache for looking up module BTF objects when
calling kfuncs defined in modules. This cache uses a 'struct
bpf_kfunc_btf_tab', which contains a sorted list of BTF objects that
were already seen in the current verifier run, and the BTF objects are
looked up by the offset stored in the relocated call instruction using
bsearch().

The first time a given offset is seen, the module BTF is loaded from the
file descriptor passed in by libbpf, and stored into the cache. However,
there's a bug in the code storing the new entry: it stores a pointer to
the new cache entry, then calls sort() to keep the cache sorted for the
next lookup using bsearch(), and then returns the entry that was just
stored through the stored pointer. However, because sort() modifies the
list of entries in place *by value*, the stored pointer may no longer
point to the right entry, in which case the wrong BTF object will be
returned.

The end result of this is an intermittent bug where, if a BPF program
calls two functions with the same signature in two different modules,
the function from the wrong module may sometimes end up being called.
Whether this happens depends on the order of the calls in the BPF
program (as that affects whether sort() reorders the array of BTF
objects), making it especially hard to track down. Simon, credited as
reporter below, spent significant effort analysing and creating a
reproducer for this issue. The reproducer is added as a selftest in a
subsequent patch.

The fix is straight forward: simply don't use the stored pointer after
calling sort(). Since we already have an on-stack pointer to the BTF
object itself at the point where the function return, just use that, and
populate it from the cache entry in the branch where the lookup
succeeds.

Fixes: 2357672c54c3 ("bpf: Introduce BPF support for kernel module function calls")
Reported-by: Simon Sundberg 
Acked-by: Jiri Olsa 
Acked-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi 
Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241010-fix-kfunc-btf-caching-for-modules-v2-1-745af6c1af98@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov 
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin