From: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
To: bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: ast@kernel.org, andrii@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net,
jose.marchesi@oracle.com, kernel-team@fb.com,
martin.lau@kernel.org, eddyz87@gmail.com, clm@meta.com,
ihor.solodrai@linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 03/10] bpf: Support stack arguments for bpf functions
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2026 07:42:50 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <79e2d926-46de-4b83-af90-2f56f4f780d8@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <02581856b17c3d0ea793c988f905388c2855a7fcbc488df8228621462ffdd2ab@mail.kernel.org>
On 4/1/26 8:18 PM, bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org wrote:
>> diff --git a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
>> index 090aa26d1c98..a260610cd1c1 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
> [ ... ]
>
>> @@ -319,6 +324,10 @@ struct bpf_func_state {
>> * `stack`. allocated_stack is always a multiple of BPF_REG_SIZE.
>> */
>> int allocated_stack;
>> +
>> + u16 stack_arg_depth; /* Size of incoming + max outgoing stack args in bytes. */
>> + u16 incoming_stack_arg_depth; /* Size of incoming stack args in bytes. */
>> + struct bpf_stack_arg_state *stack_arg_slots;
>> };
> The new stack_arg_slots state is part of bpf_func_state and is
> properly copied in copy_stack_state() and freed in free_func_state(),
> but stacksafe() does not compare it during state pruning.
>
> stacksafe() only iterates the regular stack:
>
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c:stacksafe() {
> for (i = 0; i < old->allocated_stack; i++) {
> ...
> old->stack[spi].slot_type[...]
> ...
> }
> return true;
> }
>
> It never examines old->stack_arg_slots or cur->stack_arg_slots. This
> means func_states_equal() -> stacksafe() treats two states as
> equivalent even when they differ in their stack arg slot contents.
>
> Could this allow the verifier to incorrectly prune a path where
> outgoing stack arg slots are uninitialized? For example, if a BPF
> program has two paths to a call instruction -- one that writes the
> outgoing stack args and one that does not -- the verifier could
> explore the initialized path first, save the state at a checkpoint,
> then prune the uninitialized path as equivalent. The initialization
> check in set_callee_state():
>
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c:set_callee_state() {
> for (i = 0; i < callee_incoming_slots; i++) {
> int caller_spi = i + caller_incoming_slots;
>
> if (!is_stack_arg_slot_initialized(caller, caller_spi)) {
> verbose(env, "stack arg#%d not properly initialized\n",
> i + 1 + MAX_BPF_FUNC_REG_ARGS);
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> callee->stack_arg_slots[i] = caller->stack_arg_slots[caller_spi];
> }
> }
>
> would never run on the pruned path, potentially allowing the callee
> to receive uninitialized data.
>
> It seems like stacksafe() needs a companion loop for stack_arg_slots,
> similar to how it walks the regular stack, to maintain verifier
> soundness for this new state.
You are absolutely correct. Indeed, we should do some checking for
stack_arg_slots along side stacksafe(). I will fix it in the next
revision.
>
>
> ---
> AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
> See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md
>
> CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/23879588767
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-02 14:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-02 1:27 [PATCH bpf-next 00/10] bpf: Support stack arguments for BPF functions and kfuncs Yonghong Song
2026-04-02 1:27 ` [PATCH bpf-next 01/10] bpf: Introduce bpf register BPF_REG_STACK_ARG_BASE Yonghong Song
2026-04-02 1:27 ` [PATCH bpf-next 02/10] bpf: Reuse MAX_BPF_FUNC_ARGS for maximum number of arguments Yonghong Song
2026-04-02 1:27 ` [PATCH bpf-next 03/10] bpf: Support stack arguments for bpf functions Yonghong Song
2026-04-02 3:18 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-02 14:42 ` Yonghong Song [this message]
2026-04-02 18:55 ` Amery Hung
2026-04-02 20:45 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-02 23:38 ` Amery Hung
2026-04-03 4:05 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-02 23:38 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-04-03 4:10 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-05 21:07 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-04-06 4:29 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-06 4:51 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-04-06 6:03 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-06 15:17 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-04-06 16:19 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-06 17:24 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-04-02 1:27 ` [PATCH bpf-next 04/10] bpf: Support stack arguments for kfunc calls Yonghong Song
2026-04-02 3:18 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-02 14:45 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-02 21:02 ` Amery Hung
2026-04-02 1:27 ` [PATCH bpf-next 05/10] bpf: Reject stack arguments in non-JITed programs Yonghong Song
2026-04-02 1:27 ` [PATCH bpf-next 06/10] bpf: Enable stack argument support for x86_64 Yonghong Song
2026-04-02 1:28 ` [PATCH bpf-next 07/10] bpf,x86: Implement JIT support for stack arguments Yonghong Song
2026-04-02 22:26 ` Amery Hung
2026-04-02 23:26 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-02 23:51 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-04-03 4:13 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-02 1:28 ` [PATCH bpf-next 08/10] selftests/bpf: Add tests for BPF function " Yonghong Song
2026-04-02 1:28 ` [PATCH bpf-next 09/10] selftests/bpf: Add negative test for oversized kfunc stack argument Yonghong Song
2026-04-02 1:28 ` [PATCH bpf-next 10/10] selftests/bpf: Add verifier tests for stack argument validation 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=79e2d926-46de-4b83-af90-2f56f4f780d8@linux.dev \
--to=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=clm@meta.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
--cc=jose.marchesi@oracle.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
/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.