All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
	kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v3 04/13] bpf: Track R2 of register-pair returns in precision backtracking
Date: Sat,  8 Aug 2026 12:03:42 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260808190342.1898844-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260808190322.1896580-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev>

A function returning a value larger than 8 bytes (a struct/union, or an
__int128) uses R2 as a second return register alongside R0. Precision
backtracking treats only R0 as a return register at a call/return boundary,
so once the verifier starts modeling R2 that way, marking the second half
of such a return precise would trip the "unexpected regs" checks in
backtrack_insn() and reject a valid program with -EFAULT. Handle it here,
ahead of the patch that introduces the modeling.

Marking the upper half precise, for example by branching on it after a
call to a static subprogram, walks backtracking into the callee and
reaches its BPF_EXIT with R2 still set in the mask. R2 is part of
BPF_REGMASK_ARGS, so this hits "backtracking exit unexpected regs".
Returning the pair from a global subprogram or from a kfunc instead hits
the equivalent check at the call site.

Handle R2 like R0 in the three boundaries where a call defines the return
registers:

 - static subprog exit (BPF_EXIT): when the callee returns a pair, R2 is a
   return register rather than a clobbered argument, so its precision has to
   cross the frame boundary just like R0's: clear it from the caller's mask
   before the R1-R5 check, then set it again in the callee's mask after
   bt_subprog_enter().

   The clear has to be conditional, which is why the subprogram containing
   the exit insn is looked up and queried. For a callee that does not return
   a pair, check_func_call() has already invalidated the caller's R1-R5 and
   prepare_func_exit() copies back only R0, so nothing after the call can
   depend on R2 and backtracking should never still be asking for it here.
   Clearing it unconditionally would turn that into a silent no-op instead
   of reporting it through the existing "backtracking exit unexpected regs"
   check.
 - global subprog call: a global subprog returning >8 bytes also sets R2;
   clear it before the args check.
 - kfunc call (BPF_CALL): a kfunc returning >8 bytes (model ret_size > 8)
   also sets R2; clear it like R0.

All three are gated on R2 actually being in the mask, so the extra BTF and
kfunc descriptor lookups stay off the common backtracking path.

Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
---
 include/linux/bpf_verifier.h |  2 ++
 kernel/bpf/backtrack.c       | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c        | 13 ++++++++
 3 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
index 79680f3b4c74..911d57ce2488 100644
--- a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
+++ b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
@@ -1447,6 +1447,8 @@ int bpf_jmp_offset(struct bpf_insn *insn);
 struct bpf_iarray *bpf_insn_successors(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 idx);
 void bpf_fmt_stack_mask(char *buf, ssize_t buf_sz, u64 stack_mask);
 bool bpf_subprog_is_global(const struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int subprog);
+int bpf_get_kfunc_ret_size(const struct bpf_prog *prog, u32 func_id,
+			   u16 btf_fd_idx, u8 *ret_size);
 
 int bpf_find_subprog(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int off);
 bool bpf_is_throw_kfunc(struct bpf_insn *insn);
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/backtrack.c b/kernel/bpf/backtrack.c
index 40bd04421a99..9b112bf427a5 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/backtrack.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/backtrack.c
@@ -425,6 +425,14 @@ static int backtrack_insn(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx, int subseq_idx,
 				 */
 				verifier_bug_if(idx + 1 != subseq_idx, env,
 						"extra insn from subprog");
+				/* a global subprog returning more than 8 bytes
+				 * sets R2 as well. R2 is part of the args mask
+				 * checked just below, so it has to be cleared
+				 * here rather than next to R0.
+				 */
+				if (bt_is_reg_set(bt, BPF_REG_2) &&
+				    bpf_ret_reg_pair(env, subprog))
+					bt_clear_reg(bt, BPF_REG_2);
 				/* r1-r5 are invalidated after subprog call,
 				 * so for global func call it shouldn't be set
 				 * anymore
@@ -508,6 +516,19 @@ static int backtrack_insn(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx, int subseq_idx,
 				return -ENOTSUPP;
 			/* regular helper call sets R0 */
 			bt_clear_reg(bt, BPF_REG_0);
+			/* a kfunc returning more than 8 bytes also sets R2 */
+			if (insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL &&
+			    bt_is_reg_set(bt, BPF_REG_2)) {
+				u8 ret_size;
+				int err;
+
+				err = bpf_get_kfunc_ret_size(env->prog, insn->imm, insn->off,
+							     &ret_size);
+				if (verifier_bug_if(err, env, "no kfunc desc for insn %d", idx))
+					return -EFAULT;
+				if (ret_size > 8)
+					bt_clear_reg(bt, BPF_REG_2);
+			}
 			if (bt_reg_mask(bt) & BPF_REGMASK_ARGS) {
 				/* if backtracking was looking for registers R1-R5
 				 * they should have been found already.
@@ -522,7 +543,29 @@ static int backtrack_insn(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx, int subseq_idx,
 					return -EFAULT;
 			}
 		} else if (opcode == BPF_EXIT) {
-			bool r0_precise;
+			bool from_subprog_call, r0_precise, r2_precise = false;
+
+			/* BPF_EXIT in subprog or callback always returns
+			 * right after the call instruction, so by checking
+			 * whether the instruction at subseq_idx-1 is subprog
+			 * call or not we can distinguish actual exit from
+			 * *subprog* from exit from *callback*. In the former
+			 * case, we need to propagate the precision of the
+			 * return registers, if necessary. In the latter we
+			 * never do that.
+			 */
+			from_subprog_call = subseq_idx - 1 >= 0 &&
+					    bpf_pseudo_call(&env->prog->insnsi[subseq_idx - 1]);
+			if (from_subprog_call && bt_is_reg_set(bt, BPF_REG_2)) {
+				struct bpf_subprog_info *callee;
+
+				/* 'idx' is the exit insn, so it is in the callee */
+				callee = bpf_find_containing_subprog(env, idx);
+				if (verifier_bug_if(!callee, env,
+						    "no subprog contains exit insn %d", idx))
+					return -EFAULT;
+				r2_precise = bpf_ret_reg_pair(env, callee - env->subprog_info);
+			}
 
 			/* Backtracking to a nested function call, 'idx' is a part of
 			 * the inner frame 'subseq_idx' is a part of the outer frame.
@@ -535,23 +578,15 @@ static int backtrack_insn(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx, int subseq_idx,
 			if (subseq_idx >= 0 && bpf_calls_callback(env, subseq_idx))
 				for (i = BPF_REG_1; i <= BPF_REG_5; i++)
 					bt_clear_reg(bt, i);
+			if (r2_precise)
+				bt_clear_reg(bt, BPF_REG_2);
 			if (bt_reg_mask(bt) & BPF_REGMASK_ARGS) {
 				verifier_bug(env, "backtracking exit unexpected regs %x",
 					     bt_reg_mask(bt));
 				return -EFAULT;
 			}
 
-			/* BPF_EXIT in subprog or callback always returns
-			 * right after the call instruction, so by checking
-			 * whether the instruction at subseq_idx-1 is subprog
-			 * call or not we can distinguish actual exit from
-			 * *subprog* from exit from *callback*. In the former
-			 * case, we need to propagate r0 precision, if
-			 * necessary. In the former we never do that.
-			 */
-			r0_precise = subseq_idx - 1 >= 0 &&
-				     bpf_pseudo_call(&env->prog->insnsi[subseq_idx - 1]) &&
-				     bt_is_reg_set(bt, BPF_REG_0);
+			r0_precise = from_subprog_call && bt_is_reg_set(bt, BPF_REG_0);
 
 			bt_clear_reg(bt, BPF_REG_0);
 			if (bt_subprog_enter(bt))
@@ -559,6 +594,8 @@ static int backtrack_insn(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx, int subseq_idx,
 
 			if (r0_precise)
 				bt_set_reg(bt, BPF_REG_0);
+			if (r2_precise)
+				bt_set_reg(bt, BPF_REG_2);
 			/* r6-r9 and stack slots will stay set in caller frame
 			 * bitmasks until we return back from callee(s)
 			 */
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index eed96a795e8a..f9a6c3c2132b 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -2500,6 +2500,19 @@ int bpf_get_kfunc_addr(const struct bpf_prog *prog, u32 func_id,
 	return 0;
 }
 
+int bpf_get_kfunc_ret_size(const struct bpf_prog *prog, u32 func_id,
+			   u16 btf_fd_idx, u8 *ret_size)
+{
+	const struct bpf_kfunc_desc *desc;
+
+	desc = find_kfunc_desc(prog, func_id, btf_fd_idx);
+	if (!desc)
+		return -EFAULT;
+
+	*ret_size = desc->func_model.ret_size;
+	return 0;
+}
+
 #define BPF_FD_SLOT_BTF	1UL
 
 static void fd_slot_set_map(struct bpf_fd_array *slot, struct bpf_map *map)
-- 
2.53.0-Meta


  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-08-08 19:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-08-08 19:03 [PATCH bpf-next v3 00/13] bpf: Support aggregate return values up to 16 bytes Yonghong Song
2026-08-08 19:03 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 01/13] bpf: Factor check_global_ret_scalar_reg() out of the global return check Yonghong Song
2026-08-08 19:03 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 02/13] bpf: Add helpers to describe the R0:R2 return register pair Yonghong Song
2026-08-08 19:03 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 03/13] bpf: Wire up JIT support for 16-byte kfunc returns Yonghong Song
2026-08-08 19:39   ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-10 16:29     ` Yonghong Song
2026-08-08 19:03 ` Yonghong Song [this message]
2026-08-08 19:29   ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 04/13] bpf: Track R2 of register-pair returns in precision backtracking sashiko-bot
2026-08-10 16:30     ` Yonghong Song
2026-08-08 19:03 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 05/13] bpf: Account R2 of register-pair returns in live register analysis Yonghong Song
2026-08-08 19:03 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 06/13] bpf: Reject callbacks returning more than 8 bytes Yonghong Song
2026-08-08 19:45   ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-10 16:36     ` Yonghong Song
2026-08-08 19:03 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 07/13] bpf: Add verifier support for 16-byte returns in R0:R2 Yonghong Song
2026-08-08 19:41   ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-10 16:44     ` Yonghong Song
2026-08-08 19:04 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 08/13] bpf: Reject register-pair returns when the subprog BTF is unreliable Yonghong Song
2026-08-08 19:04 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 09/13] bpf: Enable aggregate return types up to 16 bytes Yonghong Song
2026-08-08 19:04 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 10/13] selftests/bpf: Add C tests for 16-byte returns in R0:R2 Yonghong Song
2026-08-08 19:27   ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-10 16:51     ` Yonghong Song
2026-08-08 19:04 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 11/13] selftests/bpf: Add inline-asm and subprog tests for R0:R2 returns Yonghong Song
2026-08-08 19:04 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 12/13] selftests/bpf: Add tests for callbacks returning more than 8 bytes Yonghong Song
2026-08-08 19:04 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 13/13] Documentation/bpf: Document up to 16-byte kfunc return values in R0:R2 Yonghong Song

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=20260808190342.1898844-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev \
    --to=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
    /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.