From: Ning Ding <dingning04@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: memxor@gmail.com, greg@kroah.com,
Ning Ding <dingning04@gmail.com>,
sashiko-bot@kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
Emil Tsalapatis <emil@etsalapatis.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, Viktor Malik <vmalik@redhat.com>,
Justin Suess <utilityemal77@gmail.com>,
Kaitao Cheng <chengkaitao@kylinos.cn>,
Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>,
Yiyang Chen <chenyy23@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn>,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH bpf v3 4/4] selftests/bpf: Test untrusted allocated-object pointers
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2026 04:22:11 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260803112218.3361213-5-dingning04@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260803112218.3361213-1-dingning04@gmail.com>
The verifier previously allowed pointers used after RCU protection ended
to reach bpf_refcount_acquire() and, for one object layout, a direct write.
If the object was freed and reused, these operations could access stale
memory.
Add tests that keep BPF_PROBE_MEM reads accepted but reject reference
acquisition and direct writes after RCU protection ends. Cover both tested
object layouts.
Reported-by: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260726021304.97ED91F000E9@smtp.kernel.org
Assisted-by: Codex:gpt-5
Signed-off-by: Ning Ding <dingning04@gmail.com>
---
.../selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr.c | 100 ++++++++++++++++++
.../bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr_fail.c | 27 +++++
2 files changed, 127 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr.c
index fd35093285c0d..b70be8b52ff80 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr.c
@@ -893,6 +893,106 @@ long refcount_acquire_rcu_map_kptr_null_checked(void *ctx)
return 0;
}
+SEC("?tc")
+__success
+long map_kptr_read_after_rcu_unlock(void *ctx)
+{
+ struct map_value_refcount_only *mapval;
+ struct node_refcount_only *n;
+ int idx = 0;
+
+ mapval = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&stashed_refcount_only, &idx);
+ if (!mapval)
+ return 0;
+
+ bpf_rcu_read_lock();
+ n = mapval->node;
+ if (!n) {
+ bpf_rcu_read_unlock();
+ return 0;
+ }
+ bpf_rcu_read_unlock();
+
+ return n->key;
+}
+
+SEC("?tc")
+__failure __msg("is neither owning or non-owning ref")
+long refcount_acquire_graph_after_rcu_unlock(void *ctx)
+{
+ struct map_value *mapval;
+ struct node_data *n, *m;
+ int idx = 0;
+
+ mapval = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&stashed_nodes, &idx);
+ if (!mapval)
+ return 0;
+
+ bpf_rcu_read_lock();
+ n = mapval->node;
+ if (!n) {
+ bpf_rcu_read_unlock();
+ return 0;
+ }
+ bpf_rcu_read_unlock();
+
+ m = bpf_refcount_acquire(n);
+ if (m)
+ bpf_obj_drop(m);
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+SEC("?tc")
+__failure __msg("only read is supported")
+long graph_map_kptr_write_after_rcu_unlock(void *ctx)
+{
+ struct map_value *mapval;
+ struct node_data *n;
+ int idx = 0;
+
+ mapval = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&stashed_nodes, &idx);
+ if (!mapval)
+ return 1;
+
+ bpf_rcu_read_lock();
+ n = mapval->node;
+ if (!n) {
+ bpf_rcu_read_unlock();
+ return 2;
+ }
+ bpf_rcu_read_unlock();
+
+ n->key = 1;
+ return 0;
+}
+
+SEC("?tc")
+__success
+long graph_map_kptr_read_after_spin_unlock(void *ctx)
+{
+ struct map_value *mapval;
+ struct node_data *n;
+ int idx = 0;
+
+ mapval = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&stashed_nodes, &idx);
+ if (!mapval)
+ return 0;
+
+ bpf_rcu_read_lock();
+ n = mapval->node;
+ if (!n) {
+ bpf_rcu_read_unlock();
+ return 0;
+ }
+ bpf_rcu_read_unlock();
+
+ bpf_spin_lock(&lock);
+ bpf_spin_unlock(&lock);
+
+ return n->key;
+}
+
static long __stash_map_empty_xchg(struct node_data *n, int idx)
{
struct map_value *mapval = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&stashed_nodes, &idx);
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr_fail.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr_fail.c
index acd3e81a39168..3408f68ad444d 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr_fail.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr_fail.c
@@ -127,6 +127,33 @@ long refcount_acquire_rcu_map_kptr_unchecked_drop(void *ctx)
return 0;
}
+SEC("?tc")
+__failure __msg("is neither owning or non-owning ref")
+long refcount_acquire_after_rcu_unlock(void *ctx)
+{
+ struct map_value_refcount_only *mapval;
+ struct node_refcount_only *n, *m;
+ int idx = 0;
+
+ mapval = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&stashed_refcount_only, &idx);
+ if (!mapval)
+ return 1;
+
+ bpf_rcu_read_lock();
+ n = mapval->node;
+ if (!n) {
+ bpf_rcu_read_unlock();
+ return 2;
+ }
+ bpf_rcu_read_unlock();
+
+ m = bpf_refcount_acquire(n);
+ if (m)
+ bpf_obj_drop(m);
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
SEC("?tc")
__failure __msg("Unreleased reference id=3 alloc_insn={{[0-9]+}}")
long rbtree_refcounted_node_ref_escapes_owning_input(void *ctx)
--
2.43.0
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-03 11:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-03 11:22 [PATCH bpf v3 0/4] bpf: Fix refcount_acquire handling for borrowed kptrs Ning Ding
2026-08-03 11:22 ` [PATCH bpf v3 1/4] bpf: Keep refcount_acquire nullable for borrowed RCU kptrs Ning Ding
2026-08-03 12:53 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-03 13:45 ` Amery Hung
2026-08-03 11:22 ` [PATCH bpf v3 2/4] selftests/bpf: Test refcount_acquire return nullability Ning Ding
2026-08-03 13:59 ` Amery Hung
2026-08-03 22:48 ` Ning Ding
2026-08-03 11:22 ` [PATCH bpf v3 3/4] bpf: Reject untrusted allocated-object pointers Ning Ding
2026-08-03 11:22 ` Ning Ding [this message]
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=20260803112218.3361213-5-dingning04@gmail.com \
--to=dingning04@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=chengkaitao@kylinos.cn \
--cc=chenyy23@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=emil@etsalapatis.com \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=leon.hwang@linux.dev \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=utilityemal77@gmail.com \
--cc=vmalik@redhat.com \
--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