[PATCH bpf 0/7] bpf: deny trampoline attachment if args can not be located exactly on stack

[PATCH bpf 0/7] bpf: deny trampoline attachment if args can not be located exactly on stack

[Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation)]

Hello,
this series follows some discussions started in [1] around bpf
trampolines limitations on specific cases. When a trampoline is
generated for a target function involving many arguments, it has to
properly find and save the arguments that has been passed through stack.
While this is doable with basic types (eg: scalars), it brings more
uncertainty when dealing with specific types like structs (many ABIs
allow to pass structures by value if they fit in a register or a pair of
registers). The issue is that those structures layout and location on
the stack can be altered (ie with attributes, like packed or
aligned(x)), and this kind of alteration is not encoded in dwarf or BTF,
making the trampolines clueless about the needed adjustments. Rather
than trying to support this specific case, as agreed in [2], this series
aims to properly deny it.

It targets all the architectures currently implementing
arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline (except aarch64, since it has been handled
while adding the support for many args):
- x86
- s390
- riscv
- powerpc

A small validation function is added in the JIT compiler for each of
those architectures, ensuring that no argument passed on stack is a
struct. If so, the trampoline creation is cancelled. Any check on args
already implemented in a JIT comp has been moved in this new function.
On top of that, it updates the tracing_struct_many_args test, which
now merely checks that this case is indeed denied.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20250411-many_args_arm64-v1-0-0a32fe72339e@bootlin.com/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAADnVQKr3ftNt1uQVrXBE0a2o37ZYRo2PHqCoHUnw6PE5T2LoA@mail.gmail.com/

Signed-off-by: Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation) <alexis.lothore@bootlin.com>
---
Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation) (7):
      bpf/x86: use define for max regs count used for arguments
      bpf/x86: prevent trampoline attachment when args location on stack is uncertain
      bpf/riscv: prevent trampoline attachment when args location on stack is uncertain
      bpf/s390: prevent trampoline attachment when args location on stack is uncertain
      bpf/powerpc64: use define for max regs count used for arguments
      bpf/powerpc64: prevent trampoline attachment when args location on stack is uncertain
      selftests/bpf: ensure that functions passing structs on stack can not be hooked

 arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp.c                    | 38 ++++++++++--
 arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c                    | 26 +++++++-
 arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c                       | 33 ++++++++--
 arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c                        | 50 ++++++++++++----
 .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tracing_struct.c      | 37 +-----------
 .../selftests/bpf/progs/tracing_struct_many_args.c | 70 ----------------------
 .../testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c | 43 ++-----------
 7 files changed, 129 insertions(+), 168 deletions(-)
---
base-commit: c4f4f8da70044d8b28fccf73016b4119f3e2fd50
change-id: 20250609-deny_trampoline_structs_on_stack-5bbc7bc20dd1

Best regards,
-- 
Alexis Lothoré, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

[PATCH bpf 1/7] bpf/x86: use define for max regs count used for arguments

[Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation)]

x86 allows using up to 6 registers to pass arguments between function
calls. This value is hardcoded in multiple places, use a define for this
value.

Signed-off-by: Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation) <alexis.lothore@bootlin.com>
---
 arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 14 ++++++++------
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
index 15672cb926fc1817f97d2cd1c55d1575803f6958..9689834de1bb1a90fdc28156e0e2a56ac0ff2076 100644
--- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
+++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
@@ -61,6 +61,8 @@ static u8 *emit_code(u8 *ptr, u32 bytes, unsigned int len)
 #define EMIT_ENDBR_POISON()
 #endif
 
+#define MAX_REGS_FOR_ARGS	6
+
 static bool is_imm8(int value)
 {
 	return value <= 127 && value >= -128;
@@ -2710,10 +2712,10 @@ static int get_nr_used_regs(const struct btf_func_model *m)
 
 	for (i = 0; i < min_t(int, m->nr_args, MAX_BPF_FUNC_ARGS); i++) {
 		arg_regs = (m->arg_size[i] + 7) / 8;
-		if (nr_used_regs + arg_regs <= 6)
+		if (nr_used_regs + arg_regs <= MAX_REGS_FOR_ARGS)
 			nr_used_regs += arg_regs;
 
-		if (nr_used_regs >= 6)
+		if (nr_used_regs >= MAX_REGS_FOR_ARGS)
 			break;
 	}
 
@@ -2751,7 +2753,7 @@ static void save_args(const struct btf_func_model *m, u8 **prog,
 		 * the arg1-5,arg7 will be passed by regs, and arg6 will
 		 * by stack.
 		 */
-		if (nr_regs + arg_regs > 6) {
+		if (nr_regs + arg_regs > MAX_REGS_FOR_ARGS) {
 			/* copy function arguments from origin stack frame
 			 * into current stack frame.
 			 *
@@ -2811,7 +2813,7 @@ static void restore_regs(const struct btf_func_model *m, u8 **prog,
 	 */
 	for (i = 0; i < min_t(int, m->nr_args, MAX_BPF_FUNC_ARGS); i++) {
 		arg_regs = (m->arg_size[i] + 7) / 8;
-		if (nr_regs + arg_regs <= 6) {
+		if (nr_regs + arg_regs <= MAX_REGS_FOR_ARGS) {
 			for (j = 0; j < arg_regs; j++) {
 				emit_ldx(prog, BPF_DW,
 					 nr_regs == 5 ? X86_REG_R9 : BPF_REG_1 + nr_regs,
@@ -2824,7 +2826,7 @@ static void restore_regs(const struct btf_func_model *m, u8 **prog,
 			stack_size -= 8 * arg_regs;
 		}
 
-		if (nr_regs >= 6)
+		if (nr_regs >= MAX_REGS_FOR_ARGS)
 			break;
 	}
 }
@@ -3149,7 +3151,7 @@ static int __arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(struct bpf_tramp_image *im, void *rw_im
 	stack_size += (sizeof(struct bpf_tramp_run_ctx) + 7) & ~0x7;
 	run_ctx_off = stack_size;
 
-	if (nr_regs > 6 && (flags & BPF_TRAMP_F_CALL_ORIG)) {
+	if (nr_regs > MAX_REGS_FOR_ARGS && (flags & BPF_TRAMP_F_CALL_ORIG)) {
 		/* the space that used to pass arguments on-stack */
 		stack_size += (nr_regs - get_nr_used_regs(m)) * 8;
 		/* make sure the stack pointer is 16-byte aligned if we

-- 
2.49.0

[PATCH bpf 2/7] bpf/x86: prevent trampoline attachment when args location on stack is uncertain

[Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation)]

When the target function receives more arguments than available
registers, the additional arguments are passed on stack, and so the
generated trampoline needs to read those to prepare the bpf context,
but also to prepare the target function stack when it is in charge of
calling it. This works well for scalar types, but if the value is a
struct, we can not know for sure the exact struct location, as it may
have been packed or manually aligned to a greater value.

Prevent wrong readings by refusing trampoline attachment if the target
function receives a struct on stack. While at it, move the max bpf args
check in the new function.

Fixes: 473e3150e30a ("bpf, x86: allow function arguments up to 12 for TRACING")
Signed-off-by: Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation) <alexis.lothore@bootlin.com>
---
 arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
index 9689834de1bb1a90fdc28156e0e2a56ac0ff2076..120e05a978679c046631cc94d942800c3051ad0a 100644
--- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
+++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
@@ -3001,6 +3001,29 @@ static int invoke_bpf_mod_ret(const struct btf_func_model *m, u8 **pprog,
 	return 0;
 }
 
+static int validate_args(const struct btf_func_model *m)
+{
+	int i, arg_regs = 0, nr_regs = 0;
+
+	for (i = 0; i < min_t(int, m->nr_args, MAX_BPF_FUNC_ARGS); i++) {
+		arg_regs = (m->arg_size[i] + 7) / 8;
+
+		if (nr_regs + arg_regs > MAX_REGS_FOR_ARGS &&
+		    m->arg_flags[i] & BTF_FMODEL_STRUCT_ARG)
+			return -ENOTSUPP;
+		nr_regs += arg_regs;
+	}
+
+	/* x86-64 supports up to MAX_BPF_FUNC_ARGS arguments. 1-6
+	 * are passed through regs, the remains are through stack.
+	 */
+	if (nr_regs > MAX_BPF_FUNC_ARGS)
+		return -ENOTSUPP;
+
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
 /* mov rax, qword ptr [rbp - rounded_stack_depth - 8] */
 #define LOAD_TRAMP_TAIL_CALL_CNT_PTR(stack)	\
 	__LOAD_TCC_PTR(-round_up(stack, 8) - 8)
@@ -3089,18 +3112,19 @@ static int __arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(struct bpf_tramp_image *im, void *rw_im
 	WARN_ON_ONCE((flags & BPF_TRAMP_F_INDIRECT) &&
 		     (flags & ~(BPF_TRAMP_F_INDIRECT | BPF_TRAMP_F_RET_FENTRY_RET)));
 
+	/* make sure that any argument can be located and processed by the
+	 * trampoline
+	 */
+	ret = validate_args(m);
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
+
 	/* extra registers for struct arguments */
 	for (i = 0; i < m->nr_args; i++) {
 		if (m->arg_flags[i] & BTF_FMODEL_STRUCT_ARG)
 			nr_regs += (m->arg_size[i] + 7) / 8 - 1;
 	}
 
-	/* x86-64 supports up to MAX_BPF_FUNC_ARGS arguments. 1-6
-	 * are passed through regs, the remains are through stack.
-	 */
-	if (nr_regs > MAX_BPF_FUNC_ARGS)
-		return -ENOTSUPP;
-
 	/* Generated trampoline stack layout:
 	 *
 	 * RBP + 8         [ return address  ]

-- 
2.49.0

Re: [PATCH bpf 2/7] bpf/x86: prevent trampoline attachment when args location on stack is uncertain

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 09:37:11AM +0200, Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation) wrote:
> When the target function receives more arguments than available
> registers, the additional arguments are passed on stack, and so the
> generated trampoline needs to read those to prepare the bpf context,
> but also to prepare the target function stack when it is in charge of
> calling it. This works well for scalar types, but if the value is a
> struct, we can not know for sure the exact struct location, as it may
> have been packed or manually aligned to a greater value.

https://refspecs.linuxbase.org/elf/x86_64-abi-0.99.pdf

Has fairly clear rules on how arguments are encoded. Broadly speaking
for the kernel, if the structure exceeds 2 registers in size, it is
passed as a reference, otherwise it is passed as two registers.

Re: [PATCH bpf 2/7] bpf/x86: prevent trampoline attachment when args location on stack is uncertain

[Alexis Lothoré]

Hi Peter,

On Fri Jun 13, 2025 at 10:11 AM CEST, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 09:37:11AM +0200, Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation) wrote:
>> When the target function receives more arguments than available
>> registers, the additional arguments are passed on stack, and so the
>> generated trampoline needs to read those to prepare the bpf context,
>> but also to prepare the target function stack when it is in charge of
>> calling it. This works well for scalar types, but if the value is a
>> struct, we can not know for sure the exact struct location, as it may
>> have been packed or manually aligned to a greater value.
>
> https://refspecs.linuxbase.org/elf/x86_64-abi-0.99.pdf
>
> Has fairly clear rules on how arguments are encoded. Broadly speaking
> for the kernel, if the structure exceeds 2 registers in size, it is
> passed as a reference, otherwise it is passed as two registers.

Maybe my commit wording is not precise enough, but indeed, there's not
doubt about whether the struct value is passed on the stack or through a
register/a pair of registers. The doubt is rather about the struct location
when it is passed _by value_ and _on the stack_: the ABI indeed clearly
states that "Structures and unions assume the alignment of their most
strictly aligned component" (p.13), but this rule is "silently broken" when
a struct has an __attribute__((packed)) or and __attribute__((aligned(X))),
and AFAICT this case can not be detected at runtime with current BTF info.

-- 
Alexis Lothoré, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

Re: [PATCH bpf 2/7] bpf/x86: prevent trampoline attachment when args location on stack is uncertain

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 10:26:37AM +0200, Alexis Lothoré wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> On Fri Jun 13, 2025 at 10:11 AM CEST, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 09:37:11AM +0200, Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation) wrote:
> >> When the target function receives more arguments than available
> >> registers, the additional arguments are passed on stack, and so the
> >> generated trampoline needs to read those to prepare the bpf context,
> >> but also to prepare the target function stack when it is in charge of
> >> calling it. This works well for scalar types, but if the value is a
> >> struct, we can not know for sure the exact struct location, as it may
> >> have been packed or manually aligned to a greater value.
> >
> > https://refspecs.linuxbase.org/elf/x86_64-abi-0.99.pdf
> >
> > Has fairly clear rules on how arguments are encoded. Broadly speaking
> > for the kernel, if the structure exceeds 2 registers in size, it is
> > passed as a reference, otherwise it is passed as two registers.
> 
> Maybe my commit wording is not precise enough, but indeed, there's not
> doubt about whether the struct value is passed on the stack or through a
> register/a pair of registers. The doubt is rather about the struct location
> when it is passed _by value_ and _on the stack_: the ABI indeed clearly
> states that "Structures and unions assume the alignment of their most
> strictly aligned component" (p.13), but this rule is "silently broken" when
> a struct has an __attribute__((packed)) or and __attribute__((aligned(X))),
> and AFAICT this case can not be detected at runtime with current BTF info.

Ah, okay. So it is a failure of BTF. That was indeed not clear.

Re: [PATCH bpf 2/7] bpf/x86: prevent trampoline attachment when args location on stack is uncertain

[Alexis Lothoré]

On Fri Jun 13, 2025 at 10:32 AM CEST, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 10:26:37AM +0200, Alexis Lothoré wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>> 
>> On Fri Jun 13, 2025 at 10:11 AM CEST, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 09:37:11AM +0200, Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation) wrote:

[...]

>> Maybe my commit wording is not precise enough, but indeed, there's not
>> doubt about whether the struct value is passed on the stack or through a
>> register/a pair of registers. The doubt is rather about the struct location
>> when it is passed _by value_ and _on the stack_: the ABI indeed clearly
>> states that "Structures and unions assume the alignment of their most
>> strictly aligned component" (p.13), but this rule is "silently broken" when
>> a struct has an __attribute__((packed)) or and __attribute__((aligned(X))),
>> and AFAICT this case can not be detected at runtime with current BTF info.
>
> Ah, okay. So it is a failure of BTF. That was indeed not clear.

If I need to respin, I'll rewrite the commit message to include the details
above.

Alexis




-- 
Alexis Lothoré, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

Re: [PATCH bpf 2/7] bpf/x86: prevent trampoline attachment when args location on stack is uncertain

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 1:59 AM Alexis Lothoré
<alexis.lothore@bootlin.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri Jun 13, 2025 at 10:32 AM CEST, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 10:26:37AM +0200, Alexis Lothoré wrote:
> >> Hi Peter,
> >>
> >> On Fri Jun 13, 2025 at 10:11 AM CEST, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 09:37:11AM +0200, Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation) wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> Maybe my commit wording is not precise enough, but indeed, there's not
> >> doubt about whether the struct value is passed on the stack or through a
> >> register/a pair of registers. The doubt is rather about the struct location
> >> when it is passed _by value_ and _on the stack_: the ABI indeed clearly
> >> states that "Structures and unions assume the alignment of their most
> >> strictly aligned component" (p.13), but this rule is "silently broken" when
> >> a struct has an __attribute__((packed)) or and __attribute__((aligned(X))),
> >> and AFAICT this case can not be detected at runtime with current BTF info.
> >
> > Ah, okay. So it is a failure of BTF. That was indeed not clear.
>
> If I need to respin, I'll rewrite the commit message to include the details
> above.

No need to respin. The cover letter is quite detailed already.

But looking at the patch and this thread I think we need to agree
on the long term approach to BTF, since people assume that
it's a more compact dwarf and any missing information
should be added to it.
Like in this case special alignment case and packed attributes
are not expressed in BTF and I believe they should not be.
BTF is not a debug format and not a substitute for dwarf.
There is no goal to express everything possible in C.
It's minimal, because BTF is _practical_ description of
types and data present in the kernel.
I don't think the special case of packing and alignment exists
in the kernel today, so the current format is sufficient.
It doesn't miss anything.
I think we made arm64 JIT unnecessary restrictive and now considering
to make all other JITs restrictive too for hypothetical case
of some future kernel functions.
I feel we're going in the wrong direction.
Instead we should teach pahole to sanitize BTF where functions
are using this fancy alignment and packed structs.
pahole can see it in dwarf and can skip emitting BTF for such
functions. Then the kernel JITs on all architectures won't even
see such cases.

The issue was initially discovered by a selftest:
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20250411-many_args_arm64-v1-3-0a32fe72339e@bootlin.com/
that attempted to support these two types:
+struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_4 {
+ __u64 a;
+ __u64 b;
+};
+
+struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_5 {
+ __int128 a;
+};

The former is present in the kernel. It's more or less sockptr_t,
and people want to access it for observability in tracing.
The latter doesn't exist in the kernel and we cannot represent
it properly in BTF without losing alignment.

So I think we should go back to that series:
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20250411-many_args_arm64-v1-0-0a32fe72339e@bootlin.com/

remove __int128 selftest, but also teach pahole
to recognize types that cannot be represented in BTF and
don't emit them either into vmlinux or in kernel module
(like in this case it was bpf_testmod.ko)
I think that would be a better path forward aligned
with the long term goal of BTF.

And before people ask... pahole is a trusted component of the build
system. We trust it just as we trust gcc, clang, linker, objtool.

Re: [PATCH bpf 2/7] bpf/x86: prevent trampoline attachment when args location on stack is uncertain

[Alexis Lothoré]

On Sat Jun 14, 2025 at 12:35 AM CEST, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 1:59 AM Alexis Lothoré
> <alexis.lothore@bootlin.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri Jun 13, 2025 at 10:32 AM CEST, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 10:26:37AM +0200, Alexis Lothoré wrote:

[...]

>> If I need to respin, I'll rewrite the commit message to include the details
>> above.
>
> No need to respin. The cover letter is quite detailed already.
>
> But looking at the patch and this thread I think we need to agree
> on the long term approach to BTF, since people assume that
> it's a more compact dwarf and any missing information
> should be added to it.
> Like in this case special alignment case and packed attributes
> are not expressed in BTF and I believe they should not be.
> BTF is not a debug format and not a substitute for dwarf.
> There is no goal to express everything possible in C.
> It's minimal, because BTF is _practical_ description of
> types and data present in the kernel.
> I don't think the special case of packing and alignment exists
> in the kernel today, so the current format is sufficient.
> It doesn't miss anything.
> I think we made arm64 JIT unnecessary restrictive and now considering
> to make all other JITs restrictive too for hypothetical case
> of some future kernel functions.
> I feel we're going in the wrong direction.
> Instead we should teach pahole to sanitize BTF where functions
> are using this fancy alignment and packed structs.
> pahole can see it in dwarf and can skip emitting BTF for such
> functions. Then the kernel JITs on all architectures won't even
> see such cases.
>
> The issue was initially discovered by a selftest:
> https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20250411-many_args_arm64-v1-3-0a32fe72339e@bootlin.com/
> that attempted to support these two types:
> +struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_4 {
> + __u64 a;
> + __u64 b;
> +};
> +
> +struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_5 {
> + __int128 a;
> +};
>
> The former is present in the kernel. It's more or less sockptr_t,
> and people want to access it for observability in tracing.
> The latter doesn't exist in the kernel and we cannot represent
> it properly in BTF without losing alignment.
>
> So I think we should go back to that series:
> https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20250411-many_args_arm64-v1-0-0a32fe72339e@bootlin.com/
>
> remove __int128 selftest, but also teach pahole
> to recognize types that cannot be represented in BTF and
> don't emit them either into vmlinux or in kernel module
> (like in this case it was bpf_testmod.ko)
> I think that would be a better path forward aligned
> with the long term goal of BTF.
>
> And before people ask... pahole is a trusted component of the build
> system. We trust it just as we trust gcc, clang, linker, objtool.

So if I understand correctly your point, it would be better to just move out
those constraints from the JIT compilers, and just not represent those special
cases in BTF, so that it becomes impossible to hook programs on those functions,
since they are not event present in BTF info.
And so:
- cancel this series
- revert the small ARM64 check about struct passed on stack
- update pahole to make sure that it does not encode info about this specific
  kind of functions.

I still expect some challenges with this. AFAIU pahole uses DWARF to generate
BTF, and discussions in [1] highlighted the fact that the attributes altering
the structs alignment are not reliably encoded in DWARF. Maybe pahole can
"guess" if a struct has been altered, by doing something like
btf_is_struct_packed in libbpf ? As Andrii mentioned in [2], it may not be
able to cover all cases, but that could  be a start. If that's indeed the
desired direction, I can take a further look at this.

+ CC dwarves ML

Alexis

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/9a2ba0ad-b34d-42f8-89a6-d9a44f007bdc@linux.dev/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAEf4BzZHMYyGDZ4c4eNXG7Fm=ecxCCbKhKbQTbCjvWmKtdwvBw@mail.gmail.com/

Re: [PATCH bpf 2/7] bpf/x86: prevent trampoline attachment when args location on stack is uncertain

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Sun, Jun 15, 2025 at 7:00 AM Alexis Lothoré
<alexis.lothore@bootlin.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat Jun 14, 2025 at 12:35 AM CEST, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 1:59 AM Alexis Lothoré
> > <alexis.lothore@bootlin.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri Jun 13, 2025 at 10:32 AM CEST, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 10:26:37AM +0200, Alexis Lothoré wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> If I need to respin, I'll rewrite the commit message to include the details
> >> above.
> >
> > No need to respin. The cover letter is quite detailed already.
> >
> > But looking at the patch and this thread I think we need to agree
> > on the long term approach to BTF, since people assume that
> > it's a more compact dwarf and any missing information
> > should be added to it.
> > Like in this case special alignment case and packed attributes
> > are not expressed in BTF and I believe they should not be.
> > BTF is not a debug format and not a substitute for dwarf.
> > There is no goal to express everything possible in C.
> > It's minimal, because BTF is _practical_ description of
> > types and data present in the kernel.
> > I don't think the special case of packing and alignment exists
> > in the kernel today, so the current format is sufficient.
> > It doesn't miss anything.
> > I think we made arm64 JIT unnecessary restrictive and now considering
> > to make all other JITs restrictive too for hypothetical case
> > of some future kernel functions.
> > I feel we're going in the wrong direction.
> > Instead we should teach pahole to sanitize BTF where functions
> > are using this fancy alignment and packed structs.
> > pahole can see it in dwarf and can skip emitting BTF for such
> > functions. Then the kernel JITs on all architectures won't even
> > see such cases.
> >
> > The issue was initially discovered by a selftest:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20250411-many_args_arm64-v1-3-0a32fe72339e@bootlin.com/
> > that attempted to support these two types:
> > +struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_4 {
> > + __u64 a;
> > + __u64 b;
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_5 {
> > + __int128 a;
> > +};
> >
> > The former is present in the kernel. It's more or less sockptr_t,
> > and people want to access it for observability in tracing.
> > The latter doesn't exist in the kernel and we cannot represent
> > it properly in BTF without losing alignment.
> >
> > So I think we should go back to that series:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20250411-many_args_arm64-v1-0-0a32fe72339e@bootlin.com/
> >
> > remove __int128 selftest, but also teach pahole
> > to recognize types that cannot be represented in BTF and
> > don't emit them either into vmlinux or in kernel module
> > (like in this case it was bpf_testmod.ko)
> > I think that would be a better path forward aligned
> > with the long term goal of BTF.
> >
> > And before people ask... pahole is a trusted component of the build
> > system. We trust it just as we trust gcc, clang, linker, objtool.
>
> So if I understand correctly your point, it would be better to just move out
> those constraints from the JIT compilers, and just not represent those special
> cases in BTF, so that it becomes impossible to hook programs on those functions,
> since they are not event present in BTF info.
> And so:
> - cancel this series
> - revert the small ARM64 check about struct passed on stack
> - update pahole to make sure that it does not encode info about this specific
>   kind of functions.

yes

> I still expect some challenges with this. AFAIU pahole uses DWARF to generate
> BTF, and discussions in [1] highlighted the fact that the attributes altering
> the structs alignment are not reliably encoded in DWARF. Maybe pahole can
> "guess" if a struct has been altered, by doing something like
> btf_is_struct_packed in libbpf ? As Andrii mentioned in [2], it may not be
> able to cover all cases, but that could  be a start. If that's indeed the
> desired direction, I can take a further look at this.

so be it. If syzbot was taught to fuzz dwarf I'm sure it would
have exposed hundreds of bugs in the format itself and compilers,
but since such convoluted constructs are not present in the kernel
source code it's not a concern.

[PATCH bpf 3/7] bpf/riscv: prevent trampoline attachment when args location on stack is uncertain

[Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation)]

When the target function receives more arguments than available
registers, the additional arguments are passed on stack, and so the
generated trampoline needs to read those to prepare the bpf context, but
also to prepare the target function stack when it is in charge of
calling it. This works well for scalar types, but if the value is a
struct, we can not know for sure the exact struct location, as it may
have been packed or manually aligned to a greater value.

Prevent wrong readings by refusing trampoline attachment if the target
function receives a struct on stack. While at it, move the max bpf args
check in the new function.

Fixes: 6801b0aef79d ("riscv, bpf: Add 12-argument support for RV64 bpf trampoline")
Signed-off-by: Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation) <alexis.lothore@bootlin.com>
---
 arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
index 10e01ff06312d9f1e6e213bb069c6ea749ea9af2..ea3a1c3af6bc129057c16a4070c33dbf00e6c611 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
+++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
@@ -1005,6 +1005,24 @@ static int invoke_bpf_prog(struct bpf_tramp_link *l, int args_off, int retval_of
 	return ret;
 }
 
+static int validate_args(const struct btf_func_model *m)
+{
+	int i, nr_arg_slots, nr_regs = 0;
+
+	if (m->nr_args > MAX_BPF_FUNC_ARGS)
+		return -ENOTSUPP;
+
+	for (i = 0; i < m->nr_args; i++) {
+		nr_arg_slots = round_up(m->arg_size[i], 8) / 8;
+		if (nr_regs + nr_arg_slots > RV_MAX_REG_ARGS &&
+		    m->arg_flags[i] & BTF_FMODEL_STRUCT_ARG)
+			return -ENOTSUPP;
+		nr_regs += nr_arg_slots;
+	}
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
 static int __arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(struct bpf_tramp_image *im,
 					 const struct btf_func_model *m,
 					 struct bpf_tramp_links *tlinks,
@@ -1069,8 +1087,12 @@ static int __arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(struct bpf_tramp_image *im,
 	if (flags & (BPF_TRAMP_F_ORIG_STACK | BPF_TRAMP_F_SHARE_IPMODIFY))
 		return -ENOTSUPP;
 
-	if (m->nr_args > MAX_BPF_FUNC_ARGS)
-		return -ENOTSUPP;
+	/* make sure that any argument can be located and processed by the
+	 * trampoline
+	 */
+	ret = validate_args(m);
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
 
 	for (i = 0; i < m->nr_args; i++)
 		nr_arg_slots += round_up(m->arg_size[i], 8) / 8;

-- 
2.49.0

[PATCH bpf 4/7] bpf/s390: prevent trampoline attachment when args location on stack is uncertain

[Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation)]

When the target function receives more arguments than available
registers, the additional arguments are passed on stack, and so the
generated trampoline needs to read those to prepare the bpf context, but
also to prepare the target function stack when it is in charge of
calling it. This works well for scalar types, but if the value is a
struct, we can not know for sure the exact struct location, as it may
have been packed or manually aligned to a greater value.

Prevent wrong readings by refusing trampoline attachment if the target
function receives a struct on stack. While doing so, move the existing
check (ensuring that the number of args passed on stack is not higher
than MAX_NR_STACK_ARGS) into the newly created check function.

Fixes: 528eb2cb87bc ("s390/bpf: Implement arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline()")
Signed-off-by: Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation) <alexis.lothore@bootlin.com>
---
 arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
index c7f8313ba449716a8f18eafdeb6c77ed3b23f52e..b441feb20e993f54cc0e9a39c67a726f4b61d9f2 100644
--- a/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
+++ b/arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
@@ -2566,6 +2566,27 @@ static int alloc_stack(struct bpf_tramp_jit *tjit, size_t size)
 /* -mfentry generates a 6-byte nop on s390x. */
 #define S390X_PATCH_SIZE 6
 
+static int validate_args(const struct btf_func_model *m)
+{
+	int i = 0, nr_reg_args, nr_stack_args;
+
+	nr_reg_args = min_t(int, m->nr_args, MAX_NR_REG_ARGS);
+	nr_stack_args = m->nr_args - nr_reg_args;
+
+	if (nr_stack_args == 0)
+		return 0;
+
+	/* Support as many stack arguments as "mvc" instruction can handle. */
+	if (nr_stack_args > MAX_NR_STACK_ARGS)
+		return -ENOTSUPP;
+
+	for (i = nr_reg_args; i < m->nr_args; i++)
+		if (m->arg_flags[i] & BTF_FMODEL_STRUCT_ARG)
+			return -ENOTSUPP;
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
 static int __arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(struct bpf_tramp_image *im,
 					 struct bpf_tramp_jit *tjit,
 					 const struct btf_func_model *m,
@@ -2579,13 +2600,17 @@ static int __arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(struct bpf_tramp_image *im,
 	int nr_bpf_args, nr_reg_args, nr_stack_args;
 	struct bpf_jit *jit = &tjit->common;
 	int arg, bpf_arg_off;
-	int i, j;
+	int i, j, ret;
+
+	/* make sure that any argument can be located and processed by the
+	 * trampoline
+	 */
+	ret = validate_args(m);
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
 
-	/* Support as many stack arguments as "mvc" instruction can handle. */
 	nr_reg_args = min_t(int, m->nr_args, MAX_NR_REG_ARGS);
 	nr_stack_args = m->nr_args - nr_reg_args;
-	if (nr_stack_args > MAX_NR_STACK_ARGS)
-		return -ENOTSUPP;
 
 	/* Return to %r14 in the struct_ops case. */
 	if (flags & BPF_TRAMP_F_INDIRECT)

-- 
2.49.0

[PATCH bpf 5/7] bpf/powerpc64: use define for max regs count used for arguments

[Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation)]

powerpc allows using up to 8 registers to pass arguments between function
calls. This value is hardcoded in multiple places, use a define for this
value.

Signed-off-by: Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation) <alexis.lothore@bootlin.com>
---
 arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 10 +++++++---
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
index c0684733e9d6ac79b4cf653bf1b9ad40eb3e1aca..d313920a42c2310c6b5deab6d82e13af49c8ecb1 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
@@ -22,6 +22,8 @@
 
 #include "bpf_jit.h"
 
+#define MAX_REGS_FOR_ARGS	8
+
 /* These offsets are from bpf prog end and stay the same across progs */
 static int bpf_jit_ool_stub, bpf_jit_long_branch_stub;
 
@@ -613,7 +615,7 @@ static void bpf_trampoline_save_args(u32 *image, struct codegen_context *ctx, in
 	param_save_area_offset += STACK_FRAME_MIN_SIZE; /* param save area is past frame header */
 
 	for (int i = 0; i < nr_regs; i++) {
-		if (i < 8) {
+		if (i < MAX_REGS_FOR_ARGS) {
 			EMIT(PPC_RAW_STL(_R3 + i, _R1, regs_off + i * SZL));
 		} else {
 			EMIT(PPC_RAW_LL(_R3, _R1, param_save_area_offset + i * SZL));
@@ -626,7 +628,7 @@ static void bpf_trampoline_save_args(u32 *image, struct codegen_context *ctx, in
 static void bpf_trampoline_restore_args_regs(u32 *image, struct codegen_context *ctx,
 					     int nr_regs, int regs_off)
 {
-	for (int i = 0; i < nr_regs && i < 8; i++)
+	for (int i = 0; i < nr_regs && i < MAX_REGS_FOR_ARGS; i++)
 		EMIT(PPC_RAW_LL(_R3 + i, _R1, regs_off + i * SZL));
 }
 
@@ -725,7 +727,9 @@ static int __arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(struct bpf_tramp_image *im, void *rw_im
 	 *
 	 * Reserve space for at least 8 registers for now. This can be optimized later.
 	 */
-	bpf_frame_size += (nr_regs > 8 ? nr_regs : 8) * SZL;
+	bpf_frame_size +=
+		(nr_regs > MAX_REGS_FOR_ARGS ? nr_regs : MAX_REGS_FOR_ARGS) *
+		SZL;
 
 	/* Room for struct bpf_tramp_run_ctx */
 	run_ctx_off = bpf_frame_size;

-- 
2.49.0

[PATCH bpf 6/7] bpf/powerpc64: prevent trampoline attachment when args location on stack is uncertain

[Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation)]

When the target function receives more arguments than available
registers, the additional arguments are passed on stack, and so the
generated trampoline needs to read those to prepare the bpf context, but
also to prepare the target function stack when it is in charge of
calling it. This works well for scalar types, but if the value is a
struct, we can not know for sure the exact struct location, as it may
have been packed or manually aligned to a greater value.

Prevent wrong readings by refusing trampoline attachment if the target
function receives a struct on stack. While at it, move the max bpf args
check in the new function.

Fixes: d243b62b7bd3 ("powerpc64/bpf: Add support for bpf trampolines")
Signed-off-by: Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation) <alexis.lothore@bootlin.com>
---
 arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
index d313920a42c2310c6b5deab6d82e13af49c8ecb1..97f5209a25adb4865e3cc342292c8f15b1985156 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
@@ -648,6 +648,24 @@ static void bpf_trampoline_restore_args_stack(u32 *image, struct codegen_context
 	bpf_trampoline_restore_args_regs(image, ctx, nr_regs, regs_off);
 }
 
+static int validate_args(const struct btf_func_model *m)
+{
+	int nr_regs = m->nr_args, i;
+
+	for (i = 0; i < m->nr_args; i++) {
+		if (m->arg_size[i] > SZL)
+			nr_regs += round_up(m->arg_size[i], SZL) / SZL - 1;
+		if (i > MAX_REGS_FOR_ARGS &&
+		    m->arg_flags[i] & BTF_FMODEL_STRUCT_ARG)
+			return -ENOTSUPP;
+	}
+
+	if (nr_regs > MAX_BPF_FUNC_ARGS)
+		return -ENOTSUPP;
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
 static int __arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(struct bpf_tramp_image *im, void *rw_image,
 					 void *rw_image_end, void *ro_image,
 					 const struct btf_func_model *m, u32 flags,
@@ -668,15 +686,19 @@ static int __arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(struct bpf_tramp_image *im, void *rw_im
 	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PPC32))
 		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
 
+	/* make sure that any argument can be located and processed by the
+	 * trampoline
+	 */
+	ret = validate_args(m);
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
+
 	nr_regs = m->nr_args;
 	/* Extra registers for struct arguments */
 	for (i = 0; i < m->nr_args; i++)
 		if (m->arg_size[i] > SZL)
 			nr_regs += round_up(m->arg_size[i], SZL) / SZL - 1;
 
-	if (nr_regs > MAX_BPF_FUNC_ARGS)
-		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
-
 	ctx = &codegen_ctx;
 	memset(ctx, 0, sizeof(*ctx));
 

-- 
2.49.0

[PATCH bpf 7/7] selftests/bpf: ensure that functions passing structs on stack can not be hooked

[Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation)]

When attaching ebpf programs to functions through fentry/fexit, the
generated trampolines can not really make sure about the arguments exact
location on the stack if those are structures: those structures can be
altered with attributes such as packed or aligned(x), but this
information is not encoded in BTF.

Update tracing_struct_many_args test to check that programs can not be
attached on those specific functions. Not all architectures can use the
same number of registers to pass arguments, so define a testing function
that makes all currently supported architectures start passing arguments
on stack (-> more than 8 args)

Signed-off-by: Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation) <alexis.lothore@bootlin.com>
---
 .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tracing_struct.c      | 37 +-----------
 .../selftests/bpf/progs/tracing_struct_many_args.c | 70 ----------------------
 .../testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c | 43 ++-----------
 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 144 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tracing_struct.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tracing_struct.c
index 19e68d4b353278bf8e2917e62f62c89d14d7fe80..a084f6e5eca4e97b463950feba2142a628e9ec72 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tracing_struct.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tracing_struct.c
@@ -70,44 +70,9 @@ static void test_struct_many_args(void)
 		return;
 
 	err = tracing_struct_many_args__attach(skel);
-	if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "tracing_struct_many_args__attach"))
+	if (!ASSERT_EQ(err, -ENOTSUPP, "tracing_struct_many_args__attach"))
 		goto destroy_skel;
 
-	ASSERT_OK(trigger_module_test_read(256), "trigger_read");
-
-	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t7_a, 16, "t7:a");
-	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t7_b, 17, "t7:b");
-	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t7_c, 18, "t7:c");
-	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t7_d, 19, "t7:d");
-	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t7_e, 20, "t7:e");
-	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t7_f_a, 21, "t7:f.a");
-	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t7_f_b, 22, "t7:f.b");
-	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t7_ret, 133, "t7 ret");
-
-	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t8_a, 16, "t8:a");
-	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t8_b, 17, "t8:b");
-	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t8_c, 18, "t8:c");
-	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t8_d, 19, "t8:d");
-	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t8_e, 20, "t8:e");
-	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t8_f_a, 21, "t8:f.a");
-	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t8_f_b, 22, "t8:f.b");
-	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t8_g, 23, "t8:g");
-	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t8_ret, 156, "t8 ret");
-
-	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t9_a, 16, "t9:a");
-	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t9_b, 17, "t9:b");
-	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t9_c, 18, "t9:c");
-	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t9_d, 19, "t9:d");
-	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t9_e, 20, "t9:e");
-	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t9_f, 21, "t9:f");
-	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t9_g, 22, "t9:f");
-	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t9_h_a, 23, "t9:h.a");
-	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t9_h_b, 24, "t9:h.b");
-	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t9_h_c, 25, "t9:h.c");
-	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t9_h_d, 26, "t9:h.d");
-	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t9_i, 27, "t9:i");
-	ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->t9_ret, 258, "t9 ret");
-
 destroy_skel:
 	tracing_struct_many_args__destroy(skel);
 }
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tracing_struct_many_args.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tracing_struct_many_args.c
index 4742012ace06af949d7f15a21131aaef7ab006e4..1cbedcdc1c42e1fe2f118fdbd1a4ab7fe48b52fb 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tracing_struct_many_args.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tracing_struct_many_args.c
@@ -8,28 +8,11 @@ struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_4 {
 	int b;
 };
 
-struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_5 {
-	char a;
-	short b;
-	int c;
-	long d;
-};
-
-long t7_a, t7_b, t7_c, t7_d, t7_e, t7_f_a, t7_f_b, t7_ret;
-long t8_a, t8_b, t8_c, t8_d, t8_e, t8_f_a, t8_f_b, t8_g, t8_ret;
-long t9_a, t9_b, t9_c, t9_d, t9_e, t9_f, t9_g, t9_h_a, t9_h_b, t9_h_c, t9_h_d, t9_i, t9_ret;
 
 SEC("fentry/bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_7")
 int BPF_PROG2(test_struct_many_args_1, __u64, a, void *, b, short, c, int, d,
 	      void *, e, struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_4, f)
 {
-	t7_a = a;
-	t7_b = (long)b;
-	t7_c = c;
-	t7_d = d;
-	t7_e = (long)e;
-	t7_f_a = f.a;
-	t7_f_b = f.b;
 	return 0;
 }
 
@@ -37,59 +20,6 @@ SEC("fexit/bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_7")
 int BPF_PROG2(test_struct_many_args_2, __u64, a, void *, b, short, c, int, d,
 	      void *, e, struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_4, f, int, ret)
 {
-	t7_ret = ret;
-	return 0;
-}
-
-SEC("fentry/bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_8")
-int BPF_PROG2(test_struct_many_args_3, __u64, a, void *, b, short, c, int, d,
-	      void *, e, struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_4, f, int, g)
-{
-	t8_a = a;
-	t8_b = (long)b;
-	t8_c = c;
-	t8_d = d;
-	t8_e = (long)e;
-	t8_f_a = f.a;
-	t8_f_b = f.b;
-	t8_g = g;
-	return 0;
-}
-
-SEC("fexit/bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_8")
-int BPF_PROG2(test_struct_many_args_4, __u64, a, void *, b, short, c, int, d,
-	      void *, e, struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_4, f, int, g,
-	      int, ret)
-{
-	t8_ret = ret;
 	return 0;
 }
-
-SEC("fentry/bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_9")
-int BPF_PROG2(test_struct_many_args_5, __u64, a, void *, b, short, c, int, d, void *, e,
-	      char, f, short, g, struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_5, h, long, i)
-{
-	t9_a = a;
-	t9_b = (long)b;
-	t9_c = c;
-	t9_d = d;
-	t9_e = (long)e;
-	t9_f = f;
-	t9_g = g;
-	t9_h_a = h.a;
-	t9_h_b = h.b;
-	t9_h_c = h.c;
-	t9_h_d = h.d;
-	t9_i = i;
-	return 0;
-}
-
-SEC("fexit/bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_9")
-int BPF_PROG2(test_struct_many_args_6, __u64, a, void *, b, short, c, int, d, void *, e,
-	      char, f, short, g, struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_5, h, long, i, int, ret)
-{
-	t9_ret = ret;
-	return 0;
-}
-
 char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c
index e9e918cdf31ff2b15bf41302ad429e8683b834d6..ff6a4a0fb73679c6c4831ae0662bce2080e53c23 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c
@@ -55,13 +55,6 @@ struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_4 {
 	int b;
 };
 
-struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_5 {
-	char a;
-	short b;
-	int c;
-	long d;
-};
-
 __bpf_hook_start();
 
 noinline int
@@ -101,30 +94,10 @@ bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_6(struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_3 *a) {
 	return bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_result;
 }
 
-noinline int
-bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_7(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e,
-			      struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_4 f)
-{
-	bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_result = a + (long)b + c + d +
-		(long)e + f.a + f.b;
-	return bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_result;
-}
-
-noinline int
-bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_8(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e,
-			      struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_4 f, int g)
+noinline int bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_7(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d,
+					   void *e, u64 f, u64 g, u64 h,
+					   struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_4 i)
 {
-	bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_result = a + (long)b + c + d +
-		(long)e + f.a + f.b + g;
-	return bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_result;
-}
-
-noinline int
-bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_9(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e, char f,
-			      short g, struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_5 h, long i)
-{
-	bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_result = a + (long)b + c + d + (long)e +
-		f + g + h.a + h.b + h.c + h.d + i;
 	return bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_result;
 }
 
@@ -397,7 +370,6 @@ bpf_testmod_test_read(struct file *file, struct kobject *kobj,
 	struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_2 struct_arg2 = {2, 3};
 	struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_3 *struct_arg3;
 	struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_4 struct_arg4 = {21, 22};
-	struct bpf_testmod_struct_arg_5 struct_arg5 = {23, 24, 25, 26};
 	int i = 1;
 
 	while (bpf_testmod_return_ptr(i))
@@ -408,13 +380,8 @@ bpf_testmod_test_read(struct file *file, struct kobject *kobj,
 	(void)bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_3(1, 4, struct_arg2);
 	(void)bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_4(struct_arg1, 1, 2, 3, struct_arg2);
 	(void)bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_5();
-	(void)bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_7(16, (void *)17, 18, 19,
-					    (void *)20, struct_arg4);
-	(void)bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_8(16, (void *)17, 18, 19,
-					    (void *)20, struct_arg4, 23);
-	(void)bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_9(16, (void *)17, 18, 19, (void *)20,
-					    21, 22, struct_arg5, 27);
-
+	(void)bpf_testmod_test_struct_arg_7(16, (void *)17, 18, 19, (void *)20,
+					    21, 22, 23, struct_arg4);
 	(void)bpf_testmod_test_arg_ptr_to_struct(&struct_arg1_2);
 
 	(void)trace_bpf_testmod_test_raw_tp_null_tp(NULL);

-- 
2.49.0