From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Yonghong Song" <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 10/16] bpf: Reject stack arguments if tail call reachable
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2026 04:08:00 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260417040800.A5345C19425@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260417034749.2630580-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s):
- [Critical] False negative allowing tail calls and stack arguments together, leading to JIT memory corruption
- [High] State leak in verifier DFS causing false positive rejections of valid BPF programs
--
commit df24720ae892549300f1910df635621a3875dbdf
Author: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
bpf: Reject stack arguments if tail call reachable
This commit updates the verifier to reject BPF programs if they contain both
tail calls and stack arguments. This is enforced during the maximum stack
depth check traversal.
> Tailcalls are been deprecated. So reject stack arguments
> if tail call is in the way.
This isn't a bug, but there is a grammatical error here. "are been" should
likely be "have been".
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index 7a65b532e84a8..739c3127520c3 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -5662,6 +5662,11 @@ static int check_max_stack_depth_subprog(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx,
> verbose(env, "cannot tail call within exception cb\n");
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> + if (subprog[tmp].incoming_stack_arg_depth ||
> + subprog[tmp].outgoing_stack_arg_depth) {
> + verbose(env, "tail_calls are not allowed in programs with stack args\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
Looking at the earlier parts of check_max_stack_depth_subprog(), the local
variable tail_call_reachable only appears to be set to true when jumping
into a callee that has a tail call:
if (subprog[idx].has_tail_call)
tail_call_reachable = true;
If the main program (subprog[0]) natively contains a tail call,
tail_call_reachable would remain false, causing this entire check block to
be skipped.
Does this logic successfully catch the case where the main program itself
contains a tail call and also uses stack arguments?
If this escapes the verifier, the JIT might emit prologue tail call
instructions (pushing 24 bytes on x86) while calculating stack argument
offsets assuming no tail call pushes, overwriting the BPF program stack.
Could this regression lead to memory corruption in the JIT?
When the traversal pops a frame to return to the caller and jumps back to
continue_func, the tail_call_reachable variable is not reset to false:
/* pop caller idx from callee */
idx = dinfo[idx].caller;
...
goto continue_func;
If the verifier traverses a subprogram with a tail call, returns, and then
traverses a completely unrelated sibling subprogram that uses stack
arguments, it seems it would incorrectly evaluate tail_call_reachable as
true and reject the valid sibling.
Is there a state leak in this DFS traversal that could cause false positive
rejections of valid BPF programs?
> subprog[tmp].tail_call_reachable = true;
> }
> if (subprog[0].tail_call_reachable)
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260417034658.2625353-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev?part=10
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-17 4:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-17 3:46 [PATCH bpf-next v5 00/16] bpf: Support stack arguments for BPF functions and kfuncs Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 3:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 01/16] bpf: Remove unused parameter from check_map_kptr_access() Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 3:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 02/16] bpf: Refactor to avoid redundant calculation of bpf_reg_state Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 3:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 03/16] bpf: Refactor to handle memory and size together Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 4:49 ` sashiko-bot
2026-04-18 0:52 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-17 3:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 04/16] bpf: Prepare verifier logs for upcoming kfunc stack arguments Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 3:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 05/16] bpf: Introduce bpf register BPF_REG_PARAMS Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 3:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 06/16] bpf: Limit the scope of BPF_REG_PARAMS usage Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 4:30 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-17 4:50 ` sashiko-bot
2026-04-18 1:04 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-17 3:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 07/16] bpf: Reuse MAX_BPF_FUNC_ARGS for maximum number of arguments Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 4:30 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-18 0:52 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-17 3:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 08/16] bpf: Support stack arguments for bpf functions Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 4:35 ` sashiko-bot
2026-04-17 4:43 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-18 1:04 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-17 3:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 09/16] bpf: Reject stack arguments in non-JITed programs Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 4:30 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-18 0:52 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-17 3:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 10/16] bpf: Reject stack arguments if tail call reachable Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 4:08 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-04-17 4:30 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-18 1:04 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-17 3:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 11/16] bpf: Support stack arguments for kfunc calls Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 4:40 ` sashiko-bot
2026-04-17 4:43 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-18 1:04 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-17 3:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 12/16] bpf: Enable stack argument support for x86_64 Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 4:30 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-17 5:03 ` sashiko-bot
2026-04-18 1:04 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-17 3:48 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 13/16] bpf,x86: Implement JIT support for stack arguments Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 4:44 ` sashiko-bot
2026-04-18 1:20 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-17 3:48 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 14/16] selftests/bpf: Add tests for BPF function " Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 4:20 ` sashiko-bot
2026-04-18 0:52 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-17 3:48 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 15/16] selftests/bpf: Add negative test for greater-than-8-byte kfunc stack argument Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 4:28 ` sashiko-bot
2026-04-18 0:52 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-17 3:48 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 16/16] selftests/bpf: Add verifier tests for stack argument validation Yonghong Song
2026-04-17 4:38 ` sashiko-bot
2026-04-18 0:52 ` bot+bpf-ci
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=20260417040800.A5345C19425@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=yonghong.song@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