[PATCH v4 bpf-next 0/2] Range tracking for BPF_NEG

[PATCH v4 bpf-next 0/2] Range tracking for BPF_NEG

[Song Liu]

Add range tracking for BPF_NEG. Please see commit log of 1/2 for more
details.

---

Changes v3 => v4:
1. Fix selftest verifier_value_ptr_arith.c. (Eduard)

v3: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20250624233328.313573-1-song@kernel.org/

Changes v2 => v3:
1. Minor changes in the selftests. (Eduard)

v2: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20250624220038.656646-1-song@kernel.org/

Changes v1 => v2:
1. Split new selftests to a separate patch. (Eduard)
2. Reset reg id on BPF_NEG. (Eduard)
3. Use env->fake_reg instead of a bpf_reg_state on the stack. (Eduard)
4. Add __msg for passing selftests.

v1: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20250624172320.2923031-1-song@kernel.org/

Song Liu (2):
  bpf: Add range tracking for BPF_NEG
  selftests/bpf: Add tests for BPF_NEG range tracking logic

 include/linux/tnum.h                          |  2 +
 kernel/bpf/tnum.c                             |  5 ++
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c                         | 17 ++++-
 .../bpf/progs/verifier_bounds_deduction.c     | 11 +--
 .../selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_precision.c  | 70 +++++++++++++++++++
 .../bpf/progs/verifier_value_ptr_arith.c      | 22 ++++--
 6 files changed, 116 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

--
2.47.1

[PATCH v4 bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Add range tracking for BPF_NEG

[Song Liu]

Add range tracking for instruction BPF_NEG. Without this logic, a trivial
program like the following will fail

    volatile bool found_value_b;
    SEC("lsm.s/socket_connect")
    int BPF_PROG(test_socket_connect)
    {
        if (!found_value_b)
                return -1;
        return 0;
    }

with verifier log:

"At program exit the register R0 has smin=0 smax=4294967295 should have
been in [-4095, 0]".

This is because range information is lost in BPF_NEG:

0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
; if (!found_value_b) @ xxxx.c:24
0: (18) r1 = 0xffa00000011e7048       ; R1_w=map_value(...)
2: (71) r0 = *(u8 *)(r1 +0)           ; R0_w=scalar(smin32=0,smax=255)
3: (a4) w0 ^= 1                       ; R0_w=scalar(smin32=0,smax=255)
4: (84) w0 = -w0                      ; R0_w=scalar(range info lost)

Note that, the log above is manually modified to highlight relevant bits.

Fix this by maintaining proper range information with BPF_NEG, so that
the verifier will know:

4: (84) w0 = -w0                      ; R0_w=scalar(smin32=-255,smax=0)

Also updated selftests based on the expected behavior.

Signed-off-by: Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
---
 include/linux/tnum.h                          |  2 ++
 kernel/bpf/tnum.c                             |  5 +++++
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c                         | 17 +++++++++++++-
 .../bpf/progs/verifier_bounds_deduction.c     | 11 ++++++----
 .../bpf/progs/verifier_value_ptr_arith.c      | 22 ++++++++++++++-----
 5 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/tnum.h b/include/linux/tnum.h
index 3c13240077b8..57ed3035cc30 100644
--- a/include/linux/tnum.h
+++ b/include/linux/tnum.h
@@ -40,6 +40,8 @@ struct tnum tnum_arshift(struct tnum a, u8 min_shift, u8 insn_bitness);
 struct tnum tnum_add(struct tnum a, struct tnum b);
 /* Subtract two tnums, return @a - @b */
 struct tnum tnum_sub(struct tnum a, struct tnum b);
+/* Neg of a tnum, return  0 - @a */
+struct tnum tnum_neg(struct tnum a);
 /* Bitwise-AND, return @a & @b */
 struct tnum tnum_and(struct tnum a, struct tnum b);
 /* Bitwise-OR, return @a | @b */
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/tnum.c b/kernel/bpf/tnum.c
index 9dbc31b25e3d..fa353c5d550f 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/tnum.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/tnum.c
@@ -83,6 +83,11 @@ struct tnum tnum_sub(struct tnum a, struct tnum b)
 	return TNUM(dv & ~mu, mu);
 }
 
+struct tnum tnum_neg(struct tnum a)
+{
+	return tnum_sub(TNUM(0, 0), a);
+}
+
 struct tnum tnum_and(struct tnum a, struct tnum b)
 {
 	u64 alpha, beta, v;
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index f403524bd215..2ff22ef42348 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -15182,6 +15182,7 @@ static bool is_safe_to_compute_dst_reg_range(struct bpf_insn *insn,
 	switch (BPF_OP(insn->code)) {
 	case BPF_ADD:
 	case BPF_SUB:
+	case BPF_NEG:
 	case BPF_AND:
 	case BPF_XOR:
 	case BPF_OR:
@@ -15250,6 +15251,13 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 		scalar_min_max_sub(dst_reg, &src_reg);
 		dst_reg->var_off = tnum_sub(dst_reg->var_off, src_reg.var_off);
 		break;
+	case BPF_NEG:
+		env->fake_reg[0] = *dst_reg;
+		__mark_reg_known(dst_reg, 0);
+		scalar32_min_max_sub(dst_reg, &env->fake_reg[0]);
+		scalar_min_max_sub(dst_reg, &env->fake_reg[0]);
+		dst_reg->var_off = tnum_neg(env->fake_reg[0].var_off);
+		break;
 	case BPF_MUL:
 		dst_reg->var_off = tnum_mul(dst_reg->var_off, src_reg.var_off);
 		scalar32_min_max_mul(dst_reg, &src_reg);
@@ -15473,7 +15481,14 @@ static int check_alu_op(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn)
 		}
 
 		/* check dest operand */
-		err = check_reg_arg(env, insn->dst_reg, DST_OP);
+		if (opcode == BPF_NEG) {
+			err = check_reg_arg(env, insn->dst_reg, DST_OP_NO_MARK);
+			err = err ?: adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(env, insn,
+							 &regs[insn->dst_reg],
+							 regs[insn->dst_reg]);
+		} else {
+			err = check_reg_arg(env, insn->dst_reg, DST_OP);
+		}
 		if (err)
 			return err;
 
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds_deduction.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds_deduction.c
index c506afbdd936..260a6df264e3 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds_deduction.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds_deduction.c
@@ -159,13 +159,16 @@ __failure_unpriv
 __naked void deducing_bounds_from_const_10(void)
 {
 	asm volatile ("					\
+	r6 = r1;					\
 	r0 = 0;						\
 	if r0 s<= 0 goto l0_%=;				\
-l0_%=:	/* Marks reg as unknown. */			\
-	r0 = -r0;					\
-	r0 -= r1;					\
+l0_%=: /* Marks r0 as unknown. */			\
+	call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];			\
+	r0 -= r6;					\
 	exit;						\
-"	::: __clobber_all);
+"	:
+	: __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32)
+	: __clobber_all);
 }
 
 char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_value_ptr_arith.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_value_ptr_arith.c
index fcea9819e359..af7938ce56cb 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_value_ptr_arith.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_value_ptr_arith.c
@@ -231,6 +231,10 @@ __retval(1)
 __naked void ptr_unknown_vs_unknown_lt(void)
 {
 	asm volatile ("					\
+	r8 = r1;					\
+	call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];			\
+	r9 = r0;					\
+	r1 = r8;					\
 	r0 = *(u32*)(r1 + %[__sk_buff_len]);		\
 	r1 = 0;						\
 	*(u64*)(r10 - 8) = r1;				\
@@ -245,11 +249,11 @@ l1_%=:	call %[bpf_map_lookup_elem];			\
 	r4 = *(u8*)(r0 + 0);				\
 	if r4 == 1 goto l3_%=;				\
 	r1 = 6;						\
-	r1 = -r1;					\
+	r1 = r9;					\
 	r1 &= 0x3;					\
 	goto l4_%=;					\
 l3_%=:	r1 = 6;						\
-	r1 = -r1;					\
+	r1 = r9;					\
 	r1 &= 0x7;					\
 l4_%=:	r1 += r0;					\
 	r0 = *(u8*)(r1 + 0);				\
@@ -259,7 +263,8 @@ l2_%=:	r0 = 1;						\
 	: __imm(bpf_map_lookup_elem),
 	  __imm_addr(map_array_48b),
 	  __imm_addr(map_hash_16b),
-	  __imm_const(__sk_buff_len, offsetof(struct __sk_buff, len))
+	  __imm_const(__sk_buff_len, offsetof(struct __sk_buff, len)),
+	  __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32)
 	: __clobber_all);
 }
 
@@ -271,6 +276,10 @@ __retval(1)
 __naked void ptr_unknown_vs_unknown_gt(void)
 {
 	asm volatile ("					\
+	r8 = r1;					\
+	call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];			\
+	r9 = r0;					\
+	r1 = r8;					\
 	r0 = *(u32*)(r1 + %[__sk_buff_len]);		\
 	r1 = 0;						\
 	*(u64*)(r10 - 8) = r1;				\
@@ -285,11 +294,11 @@ l1_%=:	call %[bpf_map_lookup_elem];			\
 	r4 = *(u8*)(r0 + 0);				\
 	if r4 == 1 goto l3_%=;				\
 	r1 = 6;						\
-	r1 = -r1;					\
+	r1 = r9;					\
 	r1 &= 0x7;					\
 	goto l4_%=;					\
 l3_%=:	r1 = 6;						\
-	r1 = -r1;					\
+	r1 = r9;					\
 	r1 &= 0x3;					\
 l4_%=:	r1 += r0;					\
 	r0 = *(u8*)(r1 + 0);				\
@@ -299,7 +308,8 @@ l2_%=:	r0 = 1;						\
 	: __imm(bpf_map_lookup_elem),
 	  __imm_addr(map_array_48b),
 	  __imm_addr(map_hash_16b),
-	  __imm_const(__sk_buff_len, offsetof(struct __sk_buff, len))
+	  __imm_const(__sk_buff_len, offsetof(struct __sk_buff, len)),
+	  __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32)
 	: __clobber_all);
 }
 
-- 
2.47.1

[PATCH v4 bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add tests for BPF_NEG range tracking logic

[Song Liu]

BPF_REG now has range tracking logic. Add selftests for BPF_NEG.
Specifically, return value of LSM hook lsm.s/socket_connect is used to
show that the verifer tracks BPF_NEG(1) falls in the [-4095, 0] range;
while BPF_NEG(100000) does not fall in that range.

Signed-off-by: Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
---
 .../selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_precision.c  | 70 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 70 insertions(+)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_precision.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_precision.c
index 9fe5d255ee37..73fee2aec698 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_precision.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_precision.c
@@ -231,4 +231,74 @@ __naked void bpf_cond_op_not_r10(void)
 	::: __clobber_all);
 }
 
+SEC("lsm.s/socket_connect")
+__success __log_level(2)
+__msg("0: (b7) r0 = 1                        ; R0_w=1")
+__msg("1: (84) w0 = -w0                      ; R0_w=0xffffffff")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 2 first_idx 0 subseq_idx -1")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 1: (84) w0 = -w0")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 0: (b7) r0 = 1")
+__naked int bpf_neg_2(void)
+{
+	/*
+	 * lsm.s/socket_connect requires a return value within [-4095, 0].
+	 * Returning -1 is allowed
+	 */
+	asm volatile (
+	"r0 = 1;"
+	"w0 = -w0;"
+	"exit;"
+	::: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+SEC("lsm.s/socket_connect")
+__failure __msg("At program exit the register R0 has")
+__naked int bpf_neg_3(void)
+{
+	/*
+	 * lsm.s/socket_connect requires a return value within [-4095, 0].
+	 * Returning -10000 is not allowed.
+	 */
+	asm volatile (
+	"r0 = 10000;"
+	"w0 = -w0;"
+	"exit;"
+	::: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+SEC("lsm.s/socket_connect")
+__success __log_level(2)
+__msg("0: (b7) r0 = 1                        ; R0_w=1")
+__msg("1: (87) r0 = -r0                      ; R0_w=-1")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 2 first_idx 0 subseq_idx -1")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 1: (87) r0 = -r0")
+__msg("mark_precise: frame0: regs=r0 stack= before 0: (b7) r0 = 1")
+__naked int bpf_neg_4(void)
+{
+	/*
+	 * lsm.s/socket_connect requires a return value within [-4095, 0].
+	 * Returning -1 is allowed
+	 */
+	asm volatile (
+	"r0 = 1;"
+	"r0 = -r0;"
+	"exit;"
+	::: __clobber_all);
+}
+
+SEC("lsm.s/socket_connect")
+__failure __msg("At program exit the register R0 has")
+__naked int bpf_neg_5(void)
+{
+	/*
+	 * lsm.s/socket_connect requires a return value within [-4095, 0].
+	 * Returning -10000 is not allowed.
+	 */
+	asm volatile (
+	"r0 = 10000;"
+	"r0 = -r0;"
+	"exit;"
+	::: __clobber_all);
+}
+
 char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
-- 
2.47.1

Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add tests for BPF_NEG range tracking logic

[Eduard Zingerman]

On Wed, 2025-06-25 at 09:40 -0700, Song Liu wrote:
> BPF_REG now has range tracking logic. Add selftests for BPF_NEG.
> Specifically, return value of LSM hook lsm.s/socket_connect is used to
> show that the verifer tracks BPF_NEG(1) falls in the [-4095, 0] range;
> while BPF_NEG(100000) does not fall in that range.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
> ---

Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>

Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Add range tracking for BPF_NEG

[Eduard Zingerman]

On Wed, 2025-06-25 at 09:40 -0700, Song Liu wrote:
> Add range tracking for instruction BPF_NEG. Without this logic, a trivial
> program like the following will fail
> 
>     volatile bool found_value_b;
>     SEC("lsm.s/socket_connect")
>     int BPF_PROG(test_socket_connect)
>     {
>         if (!found_value_b)
>                 return -1;
>         return 0;
>     }
> 
> with verifier log:
> 
> "At program exit the register R0 has smin=0 smax=4294967295 should have
> been in [-4095, 0]".
> 
> This is because range information is lost in BPF_NEG:
> 
> 0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
> ; if (!found_value_b) @ xxxx.c:24
> 0: (18) r1 = 0xffa00000011e7048       ; R1_w=map_value(...)
> 2: (71) r0 = *(u8 *)(r1 +0)           ; R0_w=scalar(smin32=0,smax=255)
> 3: (a4) w0 ^= 1                       ; R0_w=scalar(smin32=0,smax=255)
> 4: (84) w0 = -w0                      ; R0_w=scalar(range info lost)
> 
> Note that, the log above is manually modified to highlight relevant bits.
> 
> Fix this by maintaining proper range information with BPF_NEG, so that
> the verifier will know:
> 
> 4: (84) w0 = -w0                      ; R0_w=scalar(smin32=-255,smax=0)
> 
> Also updated selftests based on the expected behavior.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
> ---

Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>

[...]

Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 0/2] Range tracking for BPF_NEG

[patchwork-bot+netdevbpf]

Hello:

This series was applied to bpf/bpf-next.git (master)
by Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>:

On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 09:40:23 -0700 you wrote:
> Add range tracking for BPF_NEG. Please see commit log of 1/2 for more
> details.
> 
> ---
> 
> Changes v3 => v4:
> 1. Fix selftest verifier_value_ptr_arith.c. (Eduard)
> 
> [...]

Here is the summary with links:
  - [v4,bpf-next,1/2] bpf: Add range tracking for BPF_NEG
    https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf-next/c/aced132599b3
  - [v4,bpf-next,2/2] selftests/bpf: Add tests for BPF_NEG range tracking logic
    https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf-next/c/2945434e248f

You are awesome, thank you!
-- 
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html