From: Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev>
To: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>, chenyuan_fl@163.com
Cc: andrii@kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, chenyuan@kylinos.cn, clm@meta.com,
daniel@iogearbox.net, jolsa@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, martin.lau@kernel.org,
martin.lau@linux.dev, memxor@gmail.com, song@kernel.org,
yonghong.song@linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf v5 1/2] bpf: Fix kfunc implicit arg inject type detection to prevent invalid pointer deref
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2026 18:18:24 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <118b0bc7-5126-465d-993c-3b25e331e2cf@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <49c36dc0f52bd05d0f8c055e3d3e96992ae716a6.camel@gmail.com>
On 6/8/26 6:00 PM, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> On Mon, 2026-06-08 at 17:54 -0700, Ihor Solodrai wrote:
>> On 6/8/26 7:26 AM, chenyuan_fl@163.com wrote:
>>> From: Yuan Chen <chenyuan@kylinos.cn>
>>>
>>> When a module kfunc declares an implicit struct bpf_prog_aux * argument,
>>> the verifier must identify it so the kernel injects env->prog->aux into
>>> the correct register at runtime. The original check used
>>> is_kfunc_arg_prog_aux() which calls btf_types_are_same() to compare the
>>> module BTF type against vmlinux.
>>>
>>> Root Cause
>>>
>>> This issue was triggered by pahole 1.30 generating module BTF with
>>> incorrect type information, which caused the kernel's distilled base
>>> BTF deduplication for modules to fail. As a result, the module retained
>>> its own copy of struct bpf_prog_aux with a different BTF ID than
>>> vmlinux's definition. While pahole 1.31 fixed the BTF generation issue,
>>> the kernel must be robust against such inconsistencies: a BTF mismatch
>>> should result in a clean rejection, not a kernel crash or information
>>> disclosure.
>>>
>>> When the distilled base dedup fails and btf_types_are_same() cannot
>>> match the module's bpf_prog_aux type against vmlinux's,
>>> is_kfunc_arg_prog_aux() returned false and the code fell through
>>> silently without setting arg_prog. The kfunc then received whatever
>>> value was in the argument register and dereferenced it as a
>>> bpf_prog_aux pointer, leading to:
>>>
>>> BUG: kernel invalid pointer dereference, address: 00000000000009e2
>>> RIP: bpf_prog_get_assoc_struct_ops+0xa/0xc0
>>> RDI: 0x000000000000046d (stale register value)
>>>
>>> In the observed crash the stale value was the process PID, causing a
>>> dereference within the unmapped NULL page. However, an attacker able
>>> to control the register value -- for example by writing a BPF program
>>> that explicitly sets R2 before calling a KF_IMPLICIT_ARGS kfunc --
>>> could redirect the dereference to arbitrary kernel memory, turning
>>> this into an information disclosure. The fix ensures the verifier
>>> either validates and injects the correct bpf_prog_aux pointer, or
>>> rejects the program outright -- no silent fallthrough that could
>>> be exploited.
>>>
>>> Crash Stack Trace
>>>
>>> PID: 1133 TASK: ffff8881057d3900 CPU: 3 COMMAND: "test_progs"
>>> #0 machine_kexec at ffffffff812f6e26
>>> #1 __crash_kexec at ffffffff8145a788
>>> #2 crash_kexec at ffffffff8145ac24
>>> #3 oops_end at ffffffff812bb67c
>>> #4 page_fault_oops at ffffffff813053a1
>>> #5 exc_page_fault at ffffffff828e60a1
>>> #6 asm_exc_page_fault at ffffffff810012a6
>>> [exception RIP: bpf_prog_get_assoc_struct_ops+10]
>>> RIP: ffffffff815c024a RSP: ffffc90001b57e48 RFLAGS: 00010283
>>> RAX: ffff8881057d3900 RBX: ffffc90001b57e68 RCX: ffff8881057d3900
>>> RDX: 0000607d4d1768b8 RSI: 000000000000046d RDI: 000000000000046d
>>> #7 bpf_kfunc_multi_st_ops_test_1_assoc at ffffffffc0013a85 [bpf_testmod]
>>> #8 bpf_trace_run2 at ffffffff814f8332
>>> #9 __traceiter_sys_enter at ffffffff81415f45
>>> #10 trace_syscall_enter at ffffffff81416735
>>> #11 do_syscall_64 at ffffffff828e06a1
>>>
>>> Fix
>>>
>>> Split the combined is_kfunc_arg_ignore() || is_kfunc_arg_implicit()
>>> check in check_kfunc_args() so that an implicit argument reaching
>>> is_kfunc_arg_implicit() without being handled by a prior handler is
>>> rejected with -EFAULT, instead of silently skipped. Existing implicit
>>> args in bpf_fixup_kfunc_call() (obj_new, percpu_obj_new, obj_drop,
>>> percpu_obj_drop, refcount_acquire, list_push, rbtree_add) are
>>> explicitly allowed.
>>>
>>> Suggested-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
>>> Fixes: 64e1360524b9 ("bpf: Verifier support for KF_IMPLICIT_ARGS")
>>> Signed-off-by: Yuan Chen <chenyuan@kylinos.cn>
>>> ---
>>> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>>> index 8ed484cb1a8a..91aaed7a5eeb 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>>> @@ -11885,9 +11885,27 @@ static int check_kfunc_args(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_kfunc_call_
>>> continue;
>>> }
>>>
>>> - if (is_kfunc_arg_ignore(btf, &args[i]) || is_kfunc_arg_implicit(meta, i))
>>> + if (is_kfunc_arg_ignore(btf, &args[i]))
>>> continue;
>>>
>>> + if (is_kfunc_arg_implicit(meta, i)) {
>>> + /* kfuncs with implicit args (e.g. 'off' parameter)
>>> + * handled during verification in bpf_fixup_kfunc_call():
>>> + * obj_new, percpu_obj_new, obj_drop, percpu_obj_drop,
>>> + * refcount_acquire, list_push, rbtree_add. Don't flag them. */
>>> + if (is_bpf_obj_new_kfunc(meta->func_id) ||
>>> + is_bpf_percpu_obj_new_kfunc(meta->func_id) ||
>>> + is_bpf_obj_drop_kfunc(meta->func_id) ||
>>> + is_bpf_percpu_obj_drop_kfunc(meta->func_id) ||
>>> + is_bpf_refcount_acquire_kfunc(meta->func_id) ||
>>> + is_bpf_list_push_kfunc(meta->func_id) ||
>>> + is_bpf_rbtree_add_kfunc(meta->func_id))
>>
>> Is the goal here to have a nice error message?
>>
>> I think this will fail for other functions like bpf_wq_set_callback().
>> For a proper check, the list must include every single kfunc with KF_IMPLICIT_ARGS, no?
>>
>> If we go this route, then the list of flagged kfuncs can be collected automatically.
>> I'm not sure we actually want to do this.
>
> The calls to functions with implicit arguments are patched by
> bpf_fixup_kfunc_call(). As far as I understand, this function:
> - handles functions with implicit bpf_prog_aux generically
> - handles the functions listed above on a case-by-case basis.
>
> The goal is not to have a nice error message, but to prevent runtime
> from reading garbage from a register.
In check_kfunc_args() we only needed to know whether the arg is implicit,
independent of its type, which is_kfunc_arg_implicit() already does. To skip it.
For vmlinux kernel kfuncs this should be enough, I think.
To properly harden against reading garbage for a *module* kfunc, I think the
verifier would have to check for the specific BTF type, e.g. "are we patching a
struct bpf_prog_aux pointer?".
It could be done immediately before patching, but at that point the verification is
complete, right?..
Other than that we'd have to somehow pass through from check_kfunc_args() to
bpf_fixup_kfunc_call() information like "arg 1 of this kfunc can be patched to prog_aux" etc.
We sort of do that already with the meta->arg_prog = true
In a module one can define arbitrary kfuncs and add KF_IMPLICIT_ARGS to them, so
proper hardening needs to be generic.
I think this boils down to whether we want to error-check module kfuncs or not.
Not sure what the verifier strategy is here, but my understanding is that in general
a custom module can easily make kernel read garbage, and it's not a kernel's problem.
>
>>
>>> + continue;
>>> + verbose(env, "%s unrecognized implicit argument, possible BTF mismatch\n",
>>> + reg_arg_name(env, argno));
>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> t = btf_type_skip_modifiers(btf, args[i].type, NULL);
>>>
>>> if (btf_type_is_scalar(t)) {
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-09 1:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-07 8:09 [PATCH] bpf: fix btf_types_are_same for cross-BTF type comparison chenyuan_fl
2026-04-07 8:58 ` Leon Hwang
2026-04-07 9:01 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-07 11:19 ` Alan Maguire
2026-05-15 18:27 ` Ihor Solodrai
2026-06-01 6:46 ` [PATCH bpf v2 0/2] bpf: Fix kfunc implicit arg injection and add selftest chenyuan_fl
2026-06-01 6:46 ` [PATCH bpf v2 1/2] bpf: Fix kfunc implicit arg inject type detection to prevent invalid pointer deref chenyuan_fl
2026-06-01 7:42 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-06-01 19:32 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-06-02 8:58 ` [PATCH bpf v3 0/2] bpf: Fix kfunc implicit arg injection and add selftest chenyuan_fl
2026-06-02 8:58 ` [PATCH bpf v3 1/2] bpf: Fix kfunc implicit arg inject type detection to prevent invalid pointer deref chenyuan_fl
2026-06-02 9:23 ` sashiko-bot
2026-06-02 9:44 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-06-02 18:52 ` Ihor Solodrai
2026-06-04 9:14 ` chenyuan
2026-06-04 10:21 ` Alan Maguire
2026-06-09 0:46 ` Ihor Solodrai
2026-06-02 8:58 ` [PATCH bpf v3 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add regression test for kfunc implicit arg injection chenyuan_fl
2026-06-02 9:31 ` sashiko-bot
2026-06-02 9:44 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-06-02 9:38 ` [PATCH bpf v4 0/2] bpf: Fix kfunc implicit arg injection and add selftest chenyuan_fl
2026-06-02 9:38 ` [PATCH bpf v4 1/2] bpf: Fix kfunc implicit arg inject type detection to prevent invalid pointer deref chenyuan_fl
2026-06-02 9:58 ` sashiko-bot
2026-06-02 10:42 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-06-05 0:42 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-06-02 9:38 ` [PATCH bpf v4 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add regression test for kfunc implicit arg injection chenyuan_fl
2026-06-02 10:06 ` sashiko-bot
2026-06-02 10:27 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-06-02 17:36 ` kernel test robot
2026-06-02 18:37 ` kernel test robot
2026-06-05 1:29 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-06-08 14:26 ` [PATCH bpf v5 0/2] bpf: Fix kfunc implicit arg injection and add selftest chenyuan_fl
2026-06-08 14:26 ` [PATCH bpf v5 1/2] bpf: Fix kfunc implicit arg inject type detection to prevent invalid pointer deref chenyuan_fl
2026-06-08 14:47 ` sashiko-bot
2026-06-08 14:52 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-06-08 17:28 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-06-09 0:54 ` Ihor Solodrai
2026-06-09 1:00 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-06-09 1:18 ` Ihor Solodrai [this message]
2026-06-08 14:26 ` [PATCH bpf v5 2/2] selftests/bpf: strengthen bpf_kfunc_implicit_arg to verify aux injection chenyuan_fl
2026-06-08 14:53 ` sashiko-bot
2026-06-08 17:34 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-06-09 0:59 ` Ihor Solodrai
2026-06-08 19:58 ` [PATCH bpf v5 0/2] bpf: Fix kfunc implicit arg injection and add selftest Alexei Starovoitov
2026-06-01 17:12 ` [PATCH bpf v2 1/2] bpf: Fix kfunc implicit arg inject type detection to prevent invalid pointer deref Yonghong Song
2026-06-01 21:36 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-06-01 6:46 ` [PATCH bpf v2 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add regression test for kfunc implicit arg injection with stale register chenyuan_fl
2026-06-01 7:08 ` sashiko-bot
2026-06-01 17:17 ` 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=118b0bc7-5126-465d-993c-3b25e331e2cf@linux.dev \
--to=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=chenyuan@kylinos.cn \
--cc=chenyuan_fl@163.com \
--cc=clm@meta.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox