From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi" <memxor@gmail.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 05/14] bpf: Track verifier register diagnostic events
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2026 07:38:33 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260815073833.A93A91F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260815064612.378577-6-memxor@gmail.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] The old state of BPF_REG_0 is incorrectly recorded as NOT_INIT for helper calls, losing its lineage.
--
--- Patch [5]: [PATCH bpf-next v5 05/14] bpf: Track verifier register diagnostic events ---
commit 3cbb3352506d462a8a06bc8434f061a5dc31d13d
Author: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Subject: bpf: Track verifier register diagnostic events
This commit introduces verification diagnostic events to track material
register and outgoing stack argument changes. This allows diagnostics to
explain how a value reached its current state, type, or bounds.
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index db644690ac4bf..a5929e40f18d1 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -10518,12 +10594,14 @@ static int check_helper_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn
> return err;
>
> /* reset caller saved regs */
> + bpf_diag_record_caller_saved(env, regs);
> for (i = 0; i < CALLER_SAVED_REGS; i++) {
> bpf_mark_reg_not_init(env, ®s[caller_saved[i]]);
> check_reg_arg(env, caller_saved[i], DST_OP_NO_MARK);
> }
> invalidate_outgoing_stack_args(env, cur_func(env));
>
> + bpf_diag_mod_begin(env, ®s[BPF_REG_0], NULL, BPF_DIAG_MOD_WRITE);
[Severity: Medium]
Does this record the old state of BPF_REG_0 as NOT_INIT?
The loop just above this line in check_helper_call() scrubs all caller-saved
registers (which includes BPF_REG_0) by calling bpf_mark_reg_not_init().
Because the bpf_diag_mod_begin() snapshot is taken after this loop finishes,
it seems we might capture the already-scrubbed state instead of what R0
actually was before the helper call.
Could this break the diagnostic lineage tracking for the return register?
Perhaps the bpf_diag_mod_begin() snapshot should be taken before the
caller-saved registers are cleared?
> /* update return register (already marked as written above) */
> ret_type = fn->ret_type;
> ret_flag = type_flag(ret_type);
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260815064612.378577-1-memxor@gmail.com?part=5
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-15 7:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-15 6:45 [PATCH bpf-next v5 00/14] Redesign Verification Errors Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-15 6:45 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 01/14] bpf: Add verifier diagnostics report helpers Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-15 6:52 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-15 7:20 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-15 6:45 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 02/14] bpf: Add source and instruction diagnostic context Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-15 7:01 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-15 7:34 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-15 6:45 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 03/14] bpf: Add verifier diagnostic event log Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-15 7:34 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-15 6:45 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 04/14] bpf: Prune verifier diagnostics when switching paths Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-15 6:46 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 05/14] bpf: Track verifier register diagnostic events Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-15 7:34 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-15 7:38 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-08-15 6:46 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 06/14] bpf: Track verifier reference " Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-15 6:46 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 07/14] bpf: Track verifier context " Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-15 7:20 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-15 6:46 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 08/14] bpf: Report Register Type Safety errors Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-15 7:34 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-15 6:46 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 09/14] bpf: Report Memory Safety bounds errors Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-15 6:59 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-15 7:34 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-15 6:46 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 10/14] bpf: Report Resource Lifetime reference leaks Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-15 7:34 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-15 6:46 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 11/14] bpf: Report Call Type Safety argument errors Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-15 7:49 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-15 6:46 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 12/14] bpf: Report Execution Context Safety errors Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-15 7:34 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-15 6:46 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 13/14] bpf: Report Program Structure CFG errors Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-15 7:34 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-15 6:46 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 14/14] bpf: Report Policy helper and kfunc errors Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-15 7:20 ` 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=20260815073833.A93A91F000E9@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.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.