From: Dudu Lu <phx0fer@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: martin.lau@linux.dev, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net,
andrii@kernel.org, Dudu Lu <phx0fer@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH] bpf: btf: reject division by zero in btf_struct_walk for zero-size flex array elements
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2026 16:50:33 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260413085033.71952-1-phx0fer@gmail.com> (raw)
btf_struct_walk() computes `off = (off - moff) % t->size` when handling
access to a flexible array member. If the element type is a zero-size
struct (e.g., `struct B {}`), t->size is 0 and this causes a division-
by-zero exception. On x86 this triggers a #DE fault resulting in a
kernel panic.
The BTF validator does not reject zero-size structs: btf_struct_check_meta()
passes trivially for vlen=0 structs, and btf_array_resolve() skips the
overflow check for flex arrays (nelems=0). This allows a user to load
crafted BTF containing `struct B {}; struct A { int x; struct B flex[]; }`
and then trigger the crash when the verifier calls btf_struct_walk()
during program load.
Fix this by adding a check for t->size == 0 before the modulo operation.
When a zero-size element type is encountered in a flex array, return
-EINVAL to reject the access.
Note: ARM64 is not affected because its `udiv` instruction returns 0
for division by zero (no exception). However, the resulting incorrect
offset computation would still be a logic bug.
Fixes: 1dc92851849c ("bpf: kernel side support for BTF Var and DataSec")
Signed-off-by: Dudu Lu <phx0fer@gmail.com>
---
kernel/bpf/btf.c | 7 +++++++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/btf.c b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
index 71f9143fe90f..f25009ea0d89 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/btf.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
@@ -7103,6 +7103,13 @@ static int btf_struct_walk(struct bpf_verifier_log *log, const struct btf *btf,
if (!btf_type_is_struct(t))
goto error;
+ /* Zero-size element type (e.g., empty struct) would cause
+ * division by zero below. Reject the access.
+ */
+ if (t->size == 0) {
+ bpf_log(log, "zero-size type in flex array\n");
+ goto error;
+ }
off = (off - moff) % t->size;
goto again;
--
2.39.3 (Apple Git-145)
next reply other threads:[~2026-04-13 8:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-13 8:50 Dudu Lu [this message]
2026-04-13 9:26 ` [PATCH] bpf: btf: reject division by zero in btf_struct_walk for zero-size flex array elements bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-13 10:23 ` Leon Hwang
2026-04-13 10:31 ` Leon Hwang
2026-04-13 21:43 ` Eduard Zingerman
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=20260413085033.71952-1-phx0fer@gmail.com \
--to=phx0fer@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=martin.lau@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