From: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
"Jose E . Marchesi" <jose.marchesi@oracle.com>,
kernel-team@fb.com, Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v4 10/18] bpf: Fix interaction between stack argument PTR_TO_STACK and dead slot poisoning
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2026 22:00:00 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260412050000.262030-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260412045826.254200-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev>
The "poison dead stack slots" mechanism (commit 2cb27158adb3) uses
static liveness analysis to identify dead stack slots and poisons them
as a safety check. However, the static liveness pass cannot track
indirect stack references through pointers passed via stack arguments.
For register-passed PTR_TO_STACK (e.g., R1 = fp-8 passed to a static
subprog), the liveness abstract tracker carries frame/offset info
through registers. When the callee dereferences R1, the tracker
attributes the read to the parent frame's stack slot, correctly marking
it alive. So no poisoning issue arises.
For stack-argument-passed PTR_TO_STACK (e.g., fp-8 stored via
*(r12-8) = r1), the value goes through BPF_REG_STACK_ARG_BASE (r12)
which the liveness pass does not track. When the callee loads the
pointer from its incoming stack arg and dereferences it, the liveness
pass cannot attribute the read back to the parent frame. The parent's
stack slot is determined dead and poisoned before the callee even
starts. The callee's subsequent dereference then fails with "slot
poisoned by dead code elimination".
Fix this by allowing STACK_POISON reads in check_stack_read_fixed_off()
when the read targets a parent frame's stack (reg_state != state).
Same-frame STACK_POISON reads remain rejected to preserve the safety
check for real liveness bugs. Cross-frame reads are safe to allow
because:
- The pointer to the parent's stack was already validated by the
verifier.
- The slot contained valid data before being (incorrectly) poisoned.
- The read returns an unknown scalar, which is conservative.
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 9 +++++++++
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index e664d924e8d4..bfeecd73e66e 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -5764,6 +5764,13 @@ static int check_stack_read_fixed_off(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
}
if (type == STACK_INVALID && env->allow_uninit_stack)
continue;
+ /*
+ * Cross-frame reads may hit slots poisoned by dead code elimination.
+ * Static liveness can't track indirect references through pointers,
+ * so allow the read conservatively.
+ */
+ if (type == STACK_POISON && reg_state != state)
+ continue;
if (type == STACK_POISON) {
verbose(env, "reading from stack off %d+%d size %d, slot poisoned by dead code elimination\n",
off, i, size);
@@ -5819,6 +5826,8 @@ static int check_stack_read_fixed_off(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
continue;
if (type == STACK_INVALID && env->allow_uninit_stack)
continue;
+ if (type == STACK_POISON && reg_state != state)
+ continue;
if (type == STACK_POISON) {
verbose(env, "reading from stack off %d+%d size %d, slot poisoned by dead code elimination\n",
off, i, size);
--
2.52.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-12 5:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-12 4:58 [PATCH bpf-next v4 00/18] bpf: Support stack arguments for BPF functions and kfuncs Yonghong Song
2026-04-12 4:58 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 01/18] bpf: Remove unused parameter from check_map_kptr_access() Yonghong Song
2026-04-12 4:58 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 02/18] bpf: Change from "arg #%d" to "arg#%d" in verifier log Yonghong Song
2026-04-12 4:58 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 03/18] bpf: Refactor to avoid redundant calculation of bpf_reg_state Yonghong Song
2026-04-12 5:31 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-12 4:58 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 04/18] bpf: Refactor to handle memory and size together Yonghong Song
2026-04-12 5:31 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-12 4:58 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 05/18] bpf: Change some regno type from u32 to int type Yonghong Song
2026-04-12 4:58 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 06/18] bpf: Use argument index instead of register index in kfunc verifier logs Yonghong Song
2026-04-12 5:43 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-12 4:59 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 07/18] bpf: Introduce bpf register BPF_REG_STACK_ARG_BASE Yonghong Song
2026-04-12 4:59 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 08/18] bpf: Reuse MAX_BPF_FUNC_ARGS for maximum number of arguments Yonghong Song
2026-04-12 4:59 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 09/18] bpf: Support stack arguments for bpf functions Yonghong Song
2026-04-12 5:43 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-12 5:00 ` Yonghong Song [this message]
2026-04-12 5:43 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 10/18] bpf: Fix interaction between stack argument PTR_TO_STACK and dead slot poisoning bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-12 5:00 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 11/18] bpf: Reject stack arguments in non-JITed programs Yonghong Song
2026-04-12 5:00 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 12/18] bpf: Reject stack arguments if tail call reachable Yonghong Song
2026-04-12 5:43 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-12 5:00 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 13/18] bpf: Support stack arguments for kfunc calls Yonghong Song
2026-04-12 5:43 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-12 5:00 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 14/18] bpf: Enable stack argument support for x86_64 Yonghong Song
2026-04-12 5:00 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 15/18] bpf,x86: Implement JIT support for stack arguments Yonghong Song
2026-04-12 5:43 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-12 5:00 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 16/18] selftests/bpf: Add tests for BPF function " Yonghong Song
2026-04-12 5:00 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 17/18] selftests/bpf: Add negative test for greater-than-8-byte kfunc stack argument Yonghong Song
2026-04-12 5:00 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 18/18] 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=20260412050000.262030-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev \
--to=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox