From: Ning Ding <dingning04@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Ning Ding <dingning04@gmail.com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
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>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
Justin Suess <utilityemal77@gmail.com>,
Amery Hung <ameryhung@gmail.com>,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/2] selftests/bpf: Test RCU pointer invalidation after spin unlock
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2026 04:26:09 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260803112615.3362122-3-dingning04@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260803112615.3362122-1-dingning04@gmail.com>
The verifier previously accepted a task kptr after the final spin unlock
ended its RCU protection in a sleepable program. The pointer could then be
used after the task was freed.
Add a negative test for that case. Add positive controls showing that the
pointer remains valid in a non-sleepable program and while an explicit RCU
read-side section is still active.
Assisted-by: Codex:gpt-5.6-sol
Assisted-by: ChatGPT:GPT-5.6-Pro
Signed-off-by: Ning Ding <dingning04@gmail.com>
---
.../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/task_kfunc.c | 2 +
.../selftests/bpf/progs/task_kfunc_common.h | 12 +++++
.../selftests/bpf/progs/task_kfunc_failure.c | 24 ++++++++++
.../selftests/bpf/progs/task_kfunc_success.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++
4 files changed, 86 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/task_kfunc.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/task_kfunc.c
index e6e95c1416e65..fbd7855712c1a 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/task_kfunc.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/task_kfunc.c
@@ -176,6 +176,8 @@ static const char * const success_tests[] = {
"test_task_from_pid_current",
"test_task_from_pid_invalid",
"task_kfunc_acquire_trusted_walked",
+ "task_kfunc_acquire_after_spin_unlock_non_sleepable",
+ "task_kfunc_acquire_after_spin_unlock_explicit_rcu",
"test_task_kfunc_flavor_relo",
"test_task_kfunc_flavor_relo_not_found",
};
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/task_kfunc_common.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/task_kfunc_common.h
index e9c4fea7a4bba..052c9d0e3e2a8 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/task_kfunc_common.h
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/task_kfunc_common.h
@@ -20,6 +20,18 @@ struct {
__uint(max_entries, 1);
} __tasks_kfunc_map SEC(".maps");
+struct task_kptr_lock_value {
+ struct bpf_spin_lock lock;
+ struct task_struct __kptr * task;
+};
+
+struct {
+ __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_ARRAY);
+ __type(key, int);
+ __type(value, struct task_kptr_lock_value);
+ __uint(max_entries, 1);
+} task_kptr_lock_map SEC(".maps");
+
struct task_struct *bpf_task_acquire(struct task_struct *p) __ksym;
void bpf_task_release(struct task_struct *p) __ksym;
struct task_struct *bpf_task_from_pid(s32 pid) __ksym;
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/task_kfunc_failure.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/task_kfunc_failure.c
index 5c99b1e6532bf..c0e7216b34193 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/task_kfunc_failure.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/task_kfunc_failure.c
@@ -378,3 +378,27 @@ int BPF_PROG(task_kfunc_release_in_map, struct task_struct *task, u64 clone_flag
return 0;
}
+
+SEC("?fentry.s/" SYS_PREFIX "sys_getpgid")
+__failure __msg("R1 must be a rcu pointer")
+int BPF_PROG(task_kfunc_acquire_after_final_spin_unlock)
+{
+ struct task_kptr_lock_value *v;
+ struct task_struct *task, *acquired;
+ int key = 0;
+
+ v = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&task_kptr_lock_map, &key);
+ if (!v)
+ return 0;
+
+ bpf_spin_lock(&v->lock);
+ task = v->task;
+ bpf_spin_unlock(&v->lock);
+ if (!task)
+ return 0;
+
+ acquired = bpf_task_acquire(task);
+ if (acquired)
+ bpf_task_release(acquired);
+ return 0;
+}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/task_kfunc_success.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/task_kfunc_success.c
index d63a79ee33dce..2bab7634c9dfd 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/task_kfunc_success.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/task_kfunc_success.c
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
#include "../bpf_experimental.h"
+#include "bpf_misc.h"
#include "task_kfunc_common.h"
char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
@@ -366,6 +367,53 @@ int BPF_PROG(task_kfunc_acquire_trusted_walked, struct task_struct *task, u64 cl
return 0;
}
+SEC("fentry/" SYS_PREFIX "sys_getpgid")
+int BPF_PROG(task_kfunc_acquire_after_spin_unlock_non_sleepable)
+{
+ struct task_kptr_lock_value *v;
+ struct task_struct *task, *acquired;
+ int key = 0;
+
+ v = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&task_kptr_lock_map, &key);
+ if (!v)
+ return 0;
+
+ bpf_spin_lock(&v->lock);
+ task = v->task;
+ bpf_spin_unlock(&v->lock);
+ if (!task)
+ return 0;
+
+ acquired = bpf_task_acquire(task);
+ if (acquired)
+ bpf_task_release(acquired);
+ return 0;
+}
+
+SEC("fentry.s/" SYS_PREFIX "sys_getpgid")
+int BPF_PROG(task_kfunc_acquire_after_spin_unlock_explicit_rcu)
+{
+ struct task_kptr_lock_value *v;
+ struct task_struct *task, *acquired;
+ int key = 0;
+
+ v = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&task_kptr_lock_map, &key);
+ if (!v)
+ return 0;
+
+ bpf_rcu_read_lock();
+ bpf_spin_lock(&v->lock);
+ task = v->task;
+ bpf_spin_unlock(&v->lock);
+ if (task) {
+ acquired = bpf_task_acquire(task);
+ if (acquired)
+ bpf_task_release(acquired);
+ }
+ bpf_rcu_read_unlock();
+ return 0;
+}
+
SEC("syscall")
int test_task_from_vpid_current(const void *ctx)
{
--
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 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/2] " Ning Ding
2026-08-04 9:30 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-03 11:26 ` Ning Ding [this message]
2026-08-04 9:40 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/2] " 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=20260803112615.3362122-3-dingning04@gmail.com \
--to=dingning04@gmail.com \
--cc=ameryhung@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=emil@etsalapatis.com \
--cc=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--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=utilityemal77@gmail.com \
--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.