From: Ning Ding <dingning04@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: memxor@gmail.com, greg@kroah.com, dingning04@gmail.com,
sashiko-bot@kernel.org, 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>,
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>,
Kaitao Cheng <chengkaitao@kylinos.cn>,
Viktor Malik <vmalik@redhat.com>,
Justin Suess <utilityemal77@gmail.com>,
Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>,
Yiyang Chen <chenyy23@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn>,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v4 4/4] selftests/bpf: Test untrusted allocated-object pointers
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2026 14:15:26 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260813211533.290256-5-dingning04@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260813211533.290256-1-dingning04@gmail.com>
The verifier previously allowed pointers used after RCU protection ended
to reach bpf_refcount_acquire() and, for one object layout, a direct write.
If the object was freed and reused, these operations could access stale
memory.
Add tests that keep BPF_PROBE_MEM reads accepted but reject reference
acquisition and direct writes after RCU protection ends. Cover both tested
object layouts.
Reported-by: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260726021304.97ED91F000E9@smtp.kernel.org
Assisted-by: Codex:gpt-5
Signed-off-by: Ning Ding <dingning04@gmail.com>
---
.../selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr.c | 100 ++++++++++++++++++
.../bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr_fail.c | 27 +++++
2 files changed, 127 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr.c
index fd35093285c0..383c5b1b7111 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr.c
@@ -893,6 +893,106 @@ long refcount_acquire_rcu_map_kptr_null_checked(void *ctx)
return 0;
}
+SEC("?syscall")
+__success
+long map_kptr_read_after_rcu_unlock(void *ctx)
+{
+ struct map_value_refcount_only *mapval;
+ struct node_refcount_only *n;
+ int idx = 0;
+
+ mapval = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&stashed_refcount_only, &idx);
+ if (!mapval)
+ return 0;
+
+ bpf_rcu_read_lock();
+ n = mapval->node;
+ if (!n) {
+ bpf_rcu_read_unlock();
+ return 0;
+ }
+ bpf_rcu_read_unlock();
+
+ return n->key;
+}
+
+SEC("?syscall")
+__failure __msg("is neither owning or non-owning ref")
+long refcount_acquire_graph_after_rcu_unlock(void *ctx)
+{
+ struct map_value *mapval;
+ struct node_data *n, *m;
+ int idx = 0;
+
+ mapval = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&stashed_nodes, &idx);
+ if (!mapval)
+ return 0;
+
+ bpf_rcu_read_lock();
+ n = mapval->node;
+ if (!n) {
+ bpf_rcu_read_unlock();
+ return 0;
+ }
+ bpf_rcu_read_unlock();
+
+ m = bpf_refcount_acquire(n);
+ if (m)
+ bpf_obj_drop(m);
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+SEC("?syscall")
+__failure __msg("only read is supported")
+long graph_map_kptr_write_after_rcu_unlock(void *ctx)
+{
+ struct map_value *mapval;
+ struct node_data *n;
+ int idx = 0;
+
+ mapval = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&stashed_nodes, &idx);
+ if (!mapval)
+ return 1;
+
+ bpf_rcu_read_lock();
+ n = mapval->node;
+ if (!n) {
+ bpf_rcu_read_unlock();
+ return 2;
+ }
+ bpf_rcu_read_unlock();
+
+ n->key = 1;
+ return 0;
+}
+
+SEC("?syscall")
+__success
+long graph_map_kptr_read_after_spin_unlock(void *ctx)
+{
+ struct map_value *mapval;
+ struct node_data *n;
+ int idx = 0;
+
+ mapval = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&stashed_nodes, &idx);
+ if (!mapval)
+ return 0;
+
+ bpf_rcu_read_lock();
+ n = mapval->node;
+ if (!n) {
+ bpf_rcu_read_unlock();
+ return 0;
+ }
+ bpf_rcu_read_unlock();
+
+ bpf_spin_lock(&lock);
+ bpf_spin_unlock(&lock);
+
+ return n->key;
+}
+
static long __stash_map_empty_xchg(struct node_data *n, int idx)
{
struct map_value *mapval = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&stashed_nodes, &idx);
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr_fail.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr_fail.c
index acd3e81a3916..0cc4cbd0c81b 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr_fail.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr_fail.c
@@ -127,6 +127,33 @@ long refcount_acquire_rcu_map_kptr_unchecked_drop(void *ctx)
return 0;
}
+SEC("?syscall")
+__failure __msg("is neither owning or non-owning ref")
+long refcount_acquire_after_rcu_unlock(void *ctx)
+{
+ struct map_value_refcount_only *mapval;
+ struct node_refcount_only *n, *m;
+ int idx = 0;
+
+ mapval = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&stashed_refcount_only, &idx);
+ if (!mapval)
+ return 1;
+
+ bpf_rcu_read_lock();
+ n = mapval->node;
+ if (!n) {
+ bpf_rcu_read_unlock();
+ return 2;
+ }
+ bpf_rcu_read_unlock();
+
+ m = bpf_refcount_acquire(n);
+ if (m)
+ bpf_obj_drop(m);
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
SEC("?tc")
__failure __msg("Unreleased reference id=3 alloc_insn={{[0-9]+}}")
long rbtree_refcounted_node_ref_escapes_owning_input(void *ctx)
--
2.43.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-13 21:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-13 21:15 [PATCH bpf-next v4 0/4] bpf: Fix refcount_acquire handling for borrowed kptrs Ning Ding
2026-08-13 21:15 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 1/4] bpf: Keep refcount_acquire nullable for borrowed RCU kptrs Ning Ding
2026-08-13 21:15 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 2/4] selftests/bpf: Test refcount_acquire return nullability Ning Ding
2026-08-13 22:26 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-13 21:15 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 3/4] bpf: Reject untrusted allocated-object pointers Ning Ding
2026-08-13 22:26 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-14 1:01 ` Ning Ding
2026-08-13 21:15 ` Ning Ding [this message]
2026-08-13 22:10 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 4/4] selftests/bpf: Test " bot+bpf-ci
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=20260813211533.290256-5-dingning04@gmail.com \
--to=dingning04@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=chengkaitao@kylinos.cn \
--cc=chenyy23@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=emil@etsalapatis.com \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=leon.hwang@linux.dev \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=utilityemal77@gmail.com \
--cc=vmalik@redhat.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.