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 v6 04/10] bpf: Handle R2 as a return register in precision backtracking
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2026 21:22:02 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260817042202.2288574-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260817042141.2286086-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev>
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.
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. Handle R2 like R0
in boundaries where a call defines the return registers.
R2 differs from R0 in that it is an argument register as well, so it is
part of the BPF_REGMASK_ARGS check and has to be cleared before that check
rather than next to R0. Clear it unconditionally, rather than only where
the callee or the kfunc really does return a pair. That gives up the
"unexpected regs" assertion for R2, and in exchange keeps backtracking
free of any BTF lookup. Nothing is lost: a callee that does not return
a pair leaves the caller's R2 uninitialized, so the main verification
pass has already rejected any program that reads it, and backtracking
is never asked for its precision.
At BPF_EXIT the return registers are sampled before the callback path
clears R1-R5. That clear does not touch R0, but it does cover R2, and
running it first would drop a pair return whenever the instruction
following the call happens to be one that invokes a callback.
Suggested-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
---
kernel/bpf/backtrack.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/backtrack.c b/kernel/bpf/backtrack.c
index a2b18a9f1694..653db80bcc47 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/backtrack.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/backtrack.c
@@ -423,6 +423,10 @@ 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");
+ /* global subprog always sets R0 */
+ bt_clear_reg(bt, BPF_REG_0);
+ /* and if it does not set R2, main pass would catch it */
+ 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
@@ -432,8 +436,6 @@ static int backtrack_insn(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx, int subseq_idx,
bt_reg_mask(bt));
return -EFAULT;
}
- /* global subprog always sets R0 */
- bt_clear_reg(bt, BPF_REG_0);
return 0;
} else {
/* static subprog call instruction, which
@@ -506,6 +508,8 @@ 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);
+ /* kfunc might also set R2 */
+ 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.
@@ -520,7 +524,25 @@ 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;
+
+ /* 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]);
+
+ /* Sample the return registers before the callback
+ * handling below clears R1-R5.
+ */
+ r0_precise = from_subprog_call && bt_is_reg_set(bt, BPF_REG_0);
+ r2_precise = from_subprog_call && bt_is_reg_set(bt, BPF_REG_2);
/* Backtracking to a nested function call, 'idx' is a part of
* the inner frame 'subseq_idx' is a part of the outer frame.
@@ -533,30 +555,22 @@ 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);
+
+ bt_clear_reg(bt, BPF_REG_0);
+ 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);
-
- bt_clear_reg(bt, BPF_REG_0);
if (bt_subprog_enter(bt))
return -EFAULT;
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)
*/
--
2.53.0-Meta
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-17 4:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-17 4:21 [PATCH bpf-next v6 00/10] bpf: Support aggregate return values up to 16 bytes Yonghong Song
2026-08-17 4:21 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 01/10] bpf: Factor check_global_ret_scalar_reg() out of the global return check Yonghong Song
2026-08-17 4:21 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 02/10] bpf: Add helpers to describe the R0:R2 return register pair Yonghong Song
2026-08-17 5:17 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-17 4:21 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 03/10] bpf: Wire up JIT support for 16-byte kfunc returns Yonghong Song
2026-08-17 4:37 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-17 4:22 ` Yonghong Song [this message]
2026-08-17 5:17 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 04/10] bpf: Handle R2 as a return register in precision backtracking bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-17 4:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 05/10] bpf: Account R2 of register-pair returns in live register analysis Yonghong Song
2026-08-17 4:43 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-17 4:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 06/10] bpf: Add verifier support for 16-byte returns in R0:R2 Yonghong Song
2026-08-17 4:42 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-17 5:17 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-17 4:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 07/10] bpf: Enable aggregate return types up to 16 bytes Yonghong Song
2026-08-17 4:42 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-17 4:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 08/10] selftests/bpf: Add C tests for 16-byte returns in R0:R2 Yonghong Song
2026-08-17 4:45 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-17 4:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 09/10] selftests/bpf: Add inline-asm and subprog tests for R0:R2 returns Yonghong Song
2026-08-17 4:42 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-17 5:17 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-17 4:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 10/10] 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=20260817042202.2288574-1-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.