From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 7/9] selftests/bpf: Adjust bpf_map layout in verifier_map_ptr
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2026 14:27:39 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260706142740.1777F1F00A3A@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260706135644.326006-8-daniel@iogearbox.net>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Critical] The removal of the `excl` field from `struct bpf_map` breaks backwards compatibility for existing, previously compiled userspace signed BPF loaders (light skeletons).
--
commit c88125fac4570eca959a997d221adcd929990142
Author: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
selftests/bpf: Adjust bpf_map layout in verifier_map_ptr
This commit updates the verifier_map_ptr selftest to reflect the new layout
of struct bpf_map. It adjusts the offsets and expected error messages to
account for the ops pointer moving to offset 32 after the removal of the
excl field.
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_map_ptr.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_map_ptr.c
> index 1661936598703..e0a65835c861b 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_map_ptr.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_map_ptr.c
> @@ -72,14 +72,15 @@ __naked void bpf_map_ptr_write_rejected(void)
>
> /*
> - * struct bpf_map starts with the SHA256 hash sha[32] at offset 0 (a readable
> - * byte array), the u32 excl field at offset 32, and the ops pointer at offset
> - * 40. Reading a u32 at offset 41 reaches into the middle of the ops pointer,
> - * i.e. a partial pointer access, which is rejected.
> + * struct bpf_map starts with the SHA256 hash sha[32] at offset 0 (a readable
> + * byte array), followed by the ops pointer at offset 32 and the inner_map_meta
> + * pointer at offset 40. Reading a u32 at offset 41 reaches into the middle of
> + * the inner_map_meta pointer, i.e. a partial pointer access, which is
> + * rejected.
> */
[Severity: Critical]
Does this structure layout change introduce a regression by breaking backwards
compatibility for existing userspace signed BPF loaders (light skeletons)?
Older versions of bpftool generated a loader program that included explicit
BPF bytecode to verify the metadata map via a 4-byte read of the excl field
at offset 32. To support this, the kernel previously pinned this offset using
BUILD_BUG_ON(offsetof(struct bpf_map, excl) != SHA256_DIGEST_SIZE).
By removing excl without retaining 4 bytes of padding, the 8-byte ops pointer
shifts to offset 32 in struct bpf_map. When an old loader attempts to read 4
bytes at offset 32, the verifier sees a partial pointer read (since 8 != 4)
and unconditionally rejects it:
kernel/bpf/btf.c:btf_struct_access() {
...
if (msize != size || off != moff) {
bpf_log(log,
"cannot access ptr member %s with moff %u in struct %s with off %u size %u\n",
mname, moff, tname, off, size);
return -EACCES;
}
...
}
Could a 4-byte padding be added to maintain backward compatibility, allowing
old loaders to safely read the padding while the new kernel securely handles
the load-time verification?
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260706135644.326006-1-daniel@iogearbox.net?part=7
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-06 14:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-06 13:56 [PATCH bpf-next v4 0/9] Verify BPF signed loader at load time Daniel Borkmann
2026-07-06 13:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 1/9] bpf: Resolve and cache fd_array objects " Daniel Borkmann
2026-07-06 15:42 ` Anton Protopopov
2026-07-06 13:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 2/9] bpf: Move bigger allocations below fd_array resolution Daniel Borkmann
2026-07-06 14:21 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-06 13:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 3/9] bpf: Verify signed loader metadata at load time Daniel Borkmann
2026-07-06 14:26 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-06 14:48 ` Daniel Borkmann
2026-07-06 15:09 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-07-06 17:16 ` Paul Moore
2026-07-06 13:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 4/9] libbpf: Drop in-loader metadata check for load-time verification Daniel Borkmann
2026-07-06 14:50 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-07-06 13:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 5/9] bpftool: Check EVP_Digest when computing excl_prog_hash Daniel Borkmann
2026-07-06 13:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 6/9] bpftool: Cover loader metadata with the program signature Daniel Borkmann
2026-07-06 13:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 7/9] selftests/bpf: Adjust bpf_map layout in verifier_map_ptr Daniel Borkmann
2026-07-06 14:27 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-07-06 14:30 ` Daniel Borkmann
2026-07-06 13:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 8/9] selftests/bpf: Verify load-time signed loader metadata Daniel Borkmann
2026-07-06 13:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 9/9] Documentation/bpf: Add BPF signing and enforcement doc Daniel Borkmann
2026-07-06 17:13 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 0/9] Verify BPF signed loader at load time Paul Moore
2026-07-06 17:47 ` Daniel Borkmann
2026-07-06 19:20 ` Paul Moore
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=20260706142740.1777F1F00A3A@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.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