BPF List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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,
	eddyz87@gmail.com, kernel-team@fb.com, martin.lau@kernel.org,
	clm@meta.com, ihor.solodrai@linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 05/13] bpf: Account R2 of register-pair returns in live register analysis
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 12:55:59 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <127e70b6-b844-4824-81fa-112ae5635abf@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <73f764590b71831acdfe184bdc7d06c9d0da1403745ac24c4dea486385fce48a@mail.kernel.org>



On 8/10/26 6:09 PM, bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org wrote:
>> A BPF_EXIT of a subprogram returning a value larger than 8 bytes (a
>> struct/union or an __int128) reads R2 as well as R0, since the second half
>> of the return value is passed back in R2. compute_insn_live_regs() only
>> marked R0 used at exit, so a callee's R2 could be considered dead and
>> cleaned from checkpointed states, which would allow unsound state pruning.
>>
>> Mark R2 as read at the BPF_EXIT of a subprogram that does return a register
>> pair. bpf_compute_live_registers() walks the instructions in order and
>> env->subprog_info[] is sorted by subprogram start, so the containing
>> subprogram is tracked with a running index and its return convention is
>> queried once per subprogram through bpf_ret_reg_pair().
> This isn't a bug, but the description talks about tracking the containing
> subprogram with a running index while walking instructions in order. The
> code that landed uses a plain nested loop iterating over subprog_info[]
> directly:
>
> 	for (subprog = 0; subprog < env->subprog_cnt; subprog++) {
> 		start = env->subprog_info[subprog].start;
> 		end = env->subprog_info[subprog + 1].start;
> 		ret_reg_pair = bpf_ret_reg_pair(env, subprog);
>
> 		for (i = start; i < end; ++i)
> 			compute_insn_live_regs(env, &insns[i], &state[i], ret_reg_pair);
> 	}
>
> This nested form gets its [start, end) ranges straight from subprog_info[]
> (the same idiom mark_fastcall_patterns() uses), so neither "walks the
> instructions in order" nor the sortedness reasoning is what makes the loop
> correct. Would it be worth adjusting that paragraph to describe the nested
> loop form that landed?

Okay, will update the commit message.

>
>
> ---
> 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/31446101762


  reply	other threads:[~2026-08-12 19:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-08-11  0:09 [PATCH bpf-next v4 00/13] bpf: Support aggregate return values up to 16 bytes Yonghong Song
2026-08-11  0:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 01/13] bpf: Factor check_global_ret_scalar_reg() out of the global return check Yonghong Song
2026-08-11  0:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 02/13] bpf: Add helpers to describe the R0:R2 return register pair Yonghong Song
2026-08-11  1:24   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-12 19:31     ` Yonghong Song
2026-08-12 20:07   ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-08-11  0:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 03/13] bpf: Wire up JIT support for 16-byte kfunc returns Yonghong Song
2026-08-11  1:24   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-12 19:48     ` Yonghong Song
2026-08-12 20:42   ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-08-11  0:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 04/13] bpf: Track R2 of register-pair returns in precision backtracking Yonghong Song
2026-08-12 21:16   ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-08-11  0:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 05/13] bpf: Account R2 of register-pair returns in live register analysis Yonghong Song
2026-08-11  1:09   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-12 19:55     ` Yonghong Song [this message]
2026-08-12 21:21   ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-08-11  0:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 06/13] bpf: Reject callbacks returning more than 8 bytes Yonghong Song
2026-08-11  0:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 07/13] bpf: Add verifier support for 16-byte returns in R0:R2 Yonghong Song
2026-08-11  1:24   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-12 20:12     ` Yonghong Song
2026-08-11  0:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 08/13] bpf: Reject register-pair returns when the subprog BTF is unreliable Yonghong Song
2026-08-11  1:24   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-12 20:26     ` Yonghong Song
2026-08-11  0:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 09/13] bpf: Enable aggregate return types up to 16 bytes Yonghong Song
2026-08-11  1:24   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-12 20:29     ` Yonghong Song
2026-08-11  0:10 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 10/13] selftests/bpf: Add C tests for 16-byte returns in R0:R2 Yonghong Song
2026-08-11  1:24   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-12 20:49     ` Yonghong Song
2026-08-11  0:10 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 11/13] selftests/bpf: Add inline-asm and subprog tests for R0:R2 returns Yonghong Song
2026-08-11  1:24   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-12 21:08     ` Yonghong Song
2026-08-11  0:10 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 12/13] selftests/bpf: Add tests for callbacks returning more than 8 bytes Yonghong Song
2026-08-11  1:24   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-12 21:22     ` Yonghong Song
2026-08-11  0:10 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 13/13] 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=127e70b6-b844-4824-81fa-112ae5635abf@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=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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox