From: Ning Ding <dingning04@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Ning Ding <dingning04@gmail.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
Emil Tsalapatis <emil@etsalapatis.com>,
Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev>,
Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/2] bpf: Invalidate RCU pointers after final spin unlock
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2026 04:26:08 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260803112615.3362122-2-dingning04@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260803112615.3362122-1-dingning04@gmail.com>
In a sleepable BPF program, a spin lock can provide the only RCU protection
for a kptr. The final bpf_spin_unlock() ends that protection, but the
verifier leaves the pointer valid. Another CPU can then free the object
before the pointer is used. A capability-limited runtime PoC triggered a
task_struct use-after-free in __bpf_get_task_stack().
Record whether the program is in an RCU-protected context before releasing
the lock. Invalidate RCU-protected pointers only when the unlock leaves the
final such context. This preserves valid pointers in non-sleepable programs
and inside an explicit RCU read-side section.
Fixes: 5861d1e8dbc4 ("bpf: Allow bpf_spin_{lock,unlock} in sleepable progs")
Assisted-by: Codex:gpt-5.6-sol
Assisted-by: ChatGPT:GPT-5.6-Pro
Signed-off-by: Ning Ding <dingning04@gmail.com>
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 5 +++++
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index b274004fccfd9..7439afdc851a7 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -206,6 +206,7 @@ static int acquire_reference(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx, int par
static int release_reference_nomark(struct bpf_verifier_state *state, int id);
static int release_reference(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int id);
static void invalidate_non_owning_refs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env);
+static void invalidate_rcu_protected_refs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env);
static bool in_rbtree_lock_required_cb(struct bpf_verifier_env *env);
static bool is_tracing_prog_type(enum bpf_prog_type type);
static int ref_set_non_owning(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
@@ -7165,6 +7166,7 @@ static int process_spin_lock(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_reg_state
return err;
}
} else {
+ bool was_in_rcu_cs;
void *ptr;
int type;
@@ -7192,10 +7194,13 @@ static int process_spin_lock(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_reg_state
verbose(env, "%s_unlock cannot be out of order\n", lock_str);
return -EINVAL;
}
+ was_in_rcu_cs = in_rcu_cs(env);
if (release_lock_state(cur, type, reg->id, ptr)) {
verbose(env, "%s_unlock of different lock\n", lock_str);
return -EINVAL;
}
+ if (was_in_rcu_cs && !in_rcu_cs(env))
+ invalidate_rcu_protected_refs(env);
invalidate_non_owning_refs(env);
}
--
2.43.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-03 11:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-03 11:26 [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/2] bpf: Invalidate RCU pointers after final spin unlock Ning Ding
2026-08-03 11:26 ` Ning Ding [this message]
2026-08-04 9:30 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/2] " Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-03 11:26 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/2] selftests/bpf: Test RCU pointer invalidation after " Ning Ding
2026-08-04 9:40 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/2] bpf: Invalidate RCU pointers after final " patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
2026-08-04 10:50 ` Puranjay Mohan
2026-08-04 16:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-08-05 7:00 ` Ning Ding
2026-08-06 9:02 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
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=20260803112615.3362122-2-dingning04@gmail.com \
--to=dingning04@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davemarchevsky@fb.com \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=emil@etsalapatis.com \
--cc=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--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.