From: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>,
Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
Feng Yang <yangfeng@kylinos.cn>,
Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>,
Toke Hoiland-Jorgensen <toke@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-patches-bot@fb.com
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add test to verify the fix of kprobe_write_ctx abuse
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2026 22:17:18 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260326141718.17731-3-leon.hwang@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260326141718.17731-1-leon.hwang@linux.dev>
Add a test to verify the issue: kprobe_write_ctx can be abused to modify
struct pt_regs of kernel functions via kprobe_write_ctx=true freplace
progs.
Without the fix, the issue is verified:
kprobe_write_ctx=true freplace prog is allowed to attach to
kprobe_write_ctx=false kprobe prog. Then, the first arg of
bpf_fentry_test1 will be set as 0, and bpf_prog_test_run_opts() gets
-EFAULT instead of 0.
With the fix, the issue is rejected at attach time.
Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>
---
.../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/attach_probe.c | 64 +++++++++++++++++++
.../selftests/bpf/progs/kprobe_write_ctx.c | 19 ++++++
2 files changed, 83 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/attach_probe.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/attach_probe.c
index 9e77e5da7097..4d253900c4ad 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/attach_probe.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/attach_probe.c
@@ -220,11 +220,73 @@ static void test_attach_kprobe_write_ctx(void)
kprobe_write_ctx__destroy(skel);
}
+
+static void test_freplace_kprobe_write_ctx(void)
+{
+ struct bpf_program *prog_kprobe, *prog_ext, *prog_fentry;
+ struct kprobe_write_ctx *skel_kprobe, *skel_ext = NULL;
+ struct bpf_link *link_kprobe = NULL, *link_ext = NULL;
+ int err, prog_fd;
+ LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_kprobe_opts, kprobe_opts);
+ LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_test_run_opts, topts);
+
+ skel_kprobe = kprobe_write_ctx__open();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel_kprobe, "kprobe_write_ctx__open kprobe"))
+ return;
+
+ prog_kprobe = skel_kprobe->progs.kprobe_dummy;
+ bpf_program__set_autoload(prog_kprobe, true);
+
+ prog_fentry = skel_kprobe->progs.fentry;
+ bpf_program__set_autoload(prog_fentry, true);
+
+ err = kprobe_write_ctx__load(skel_kprobe);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "kprobe_write_ctx__load kprobe"))
+ goto out;
+
+ skel_ext = kprobe_write_ctx__open();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel_ext, "kprobe_write_ctx__open ext"))
+ goto out;
+
+ prog_ext = skel_ext->progs.freplace_kprobe;
+ bpf_program__set_autoload(prog_ext, true);
+
+ prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(skel_kprobe->progs.kprobe_write_ctx);
+ bpf_program__set_attach_target(prog_ext, prog_fd, "kprobe_write_ctx");
+
+ err = kprobe_write_ctx__load(skel_ext);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "kprobe_write_ctx__load ext"))
+ goto out;
+
+ prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(prog_kprobe);
+ link_ext = bpf_program__attach_freplace(prog_ext, prog_fd, "kprobe_dummy");
+ ASSERT_ERR_PTR(link_ext, "bpf_program__attach_freplace link");
+ ASSERT_EQ(errno, EINVAL, "bpf_program__attach_freplace errno");
+
+ link_kprobe = bpf_program__attach_kprobe_opts(prog_kprobe, "bpf_fentry_test1",
+ &kprobe_opts);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(link_kprobe, "bpf_program__attach_kprobe_opts"))
+ goto out;
+
+ err = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(bpf_program__fd(prog_fentry), &topts);
+ ASSERT_OK(err, "bpf_prog_test_run_opts");
+
+out:
+ bpf_link__destroy(link_ext);
+ bpf_link__destroy(link_kprobe);
+ kprobe_write_ctx__destroy(skel_ext);
+ kprobe_write_ctx__destroy(skel_kprobe);
+}
#else
static void test_attach_kprobe_write_ctx(void)
{
test__skip();
}
+
+static void test_freplace_kprobe_write_ctx(void)
+{
+ test__skip();
+}
#endif
static void test_attach_probe_auto(struct test_attach_probe *skel)
@@ -434,6 +496,8 @@ void test_attach_probe(void)
test_attach_kprobe_long_event_name();
if (test__start_subtest("kprobe-write-ctx"))
test_attach_kprobe_write_ctx();
+ if (test__start_subtest("freplace-kprobe-write-ctx"))
+ test_freplace_kprobe_write_ctx();
cleanup:
test_attach_probe__destroy(skel);
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kprobe_write_ctx.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kprobe_write_ctx.c
index f77aef0474d3..adbf52afe490 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kprobe_write_ctx.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/kprobe_write_ctx.c
@@ -19,4 +19,23 @@ int kprobe_multi_write_ctx(struct pt_regs *ctx)
ctx->ax = 0;
return 0;
}
+
+SEC("?kprobe")
+int kprobe_dummy(struct pt_regs *regs)
+{
+ return 0;
+}
+
+SEC("?freplace")
+int freplace_kprobe(struct pt_regs *regs)
+{
+ regs->di = 0;
+ return 0;
+}
+
+SEC("?fentry/bpf_fentry_test1")
+int BPF_PROG(fentry)
+{
+ return 0;
+}
#endif
--
2.53.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-26 14:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-26 14:17 [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/2] bpf: Fix abuse of kprobe_write_ctx via freplace Leon Hwang
2026-03-26 14:17 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/2] " Leon Hwang
2026-03-27 21:39 ` Song Liu
2026-03-30 5:38 ` Leon Hwang
2026-03-30 16:43 ` Song Liu
2026-03-30 17:09 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-03-30 17:20 ` Song Liu
2026-03-30 9:28 ` Jiri Olsa
2026-03-30 13:52 ` Leon Hwang
2026-03-26 14:17 ` Leon Hwang [this message]
2026-03-30 9:28 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add test to verify the fix of kprobe_write_ctx abuse Jiri Olsa
2026-03-30 13:55 ` Leon Hwang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260326141718.17731-3-leon.hwang@linux.dev \
--to=leon.hwang@linux.dev \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-patches-bot@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=toke@redhat.com \
--cc=yangfeng@kylinos.cn \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.