From: Vineet Gupta <vineet.gupta@linux.dev>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vineet Gupta <vineet.gupta@linux.dev>
Subject: [bpf-next 1/4] selftests/bpf: map_kptr: force BPF_STX for the scalar store to kptr
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2026 10:02:48 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260803170251.1898102-2-vineet.gupta@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260803170251.1898102-1-vineet.gupta@linux.dev>
reject_scalar_store_to_kptr stores a scalar constant to a kptr field:
*(volatile u64 *)&v->unref_ptr = 0xBADC0DE;
Compilers generate one of two encodings for that:
1. Materialize the constant into a register and emit BPF_STX:
r1 = 0xbadc0de
*(u64 *)(r0 + 0x8) = r1
2. Or fold it into a single BPF_ST (store immediate):
*(u64 *)(r0 + 0x8) = 0xbadc0de
check_map_kptr_access() rejects both, but through very different checks.
BPF_STX goes through map_kptr_match_type(), whose first test is
base_type(reg->type) != PTR_TO_BTF_ID - the scalar rejection this test is
named for - and which prints "invalid kptr access, R...". BPF_ST only gets
the trivial "BPF_ST imm must be 0 when storing to kptr" immediate check and
never reaches map_kptr_match_type() at all.
So on a compiler that folds the constant - bpf-gcc, and clang from
-mcpu=v4, which enabled BPF_ST around v4 support due to historical
verifier limitations - the test fails against its expected message.
Widening the __msg to accept either message would make it pass again, but
on those toolchains it would then only re-test the imm != 0 path, which
verifier/map_kptr.c ("map_kptr: BPF_ST imm != 0") already covers, and the
scalar-vs-PTR_TO_BTF_ID check would lose its only test in the tree.
Route the value through barrier_var() instead, so the store stays a
BPF_STX everywhere and the test keeps asserting what it was written to
assert. clang -mcpu=v1..v4 and bpf-gcc 16.1 all emit the register form
afterwards.
bpf-gcc, before: #229/20 map_kptr/reject_scalar_store_to_kptr:FAIL
bpf-gcc, after : #229/20 map_kptr/reject_scalar_store_to_kptr:OK
Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta <vineet.gupta@linux.dev>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/map_kptr_fail.c | 11 ++++++++++-
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/map_kptr_fail.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/map_kptr_fail.c
index f11848dfa78f..cb84e23b83c0 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/map_kptr_fail.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/map_kptr_fail.c
@@ -390,13 +390,22 @@ __failure __msg("invalid kptr access, R")
int reject_scalar_store_to_kptr(struct __sk_buff *ctx)
{
struct map_value *v;
+ u64 val = 0xBADC0DE;
int key = 0;
v = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&array_map, &key);
if (!v)
return 0;
- *(volatile u64 *)&v->unref_ptr = 0xBADC0DE;
+ /*
+ * Keep the value in a register so this stays a BPF_STX and keeps
+ * exercising map_kptr_match_type(). Compilers that fold the constant
+ * into a BPF_ST (store immediate) instead - bpf-gcc, and clang from
+ * -mcpu=v4 - would be rejected by the far weaker "BPF_ST imm must be
+ * 0" check, which verifier/map_kptr.c already covers.
+ */
+ barrier_var(val);
+ *(volatile u64 *)&v->unref_ptr = val;
return 0;
}
--
2.55.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-03 17:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-03 17:02 [bpf-next 0/4] selftest related fixes Vineet Gupta
2026-08-03 17:02 ` Vineet Gupta [this message]
2026-08-03 17:02 ` [bpf-next 2/4] selftests/bpf: add --no-error-summary to skip end-of-run error log dump Vineet Gupta
2026-08-03 18:15 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-03 19:48 ` Vineet Gupta
2026-08-03 17:02 ` [bpf-next 3/4] selftests/bpf: report failed subtest count in test_progs summary Vineet Gupta
2026-08-03 18:31 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-03 18:36 ` Vineet Gupta
2026-08-03 17:02 ` [bpf-next 4/4] selftests/bpf: vmtest.sh: preserve command quoting when running in the VM Vineet Gupta
2026-08-03 18:31 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-03 19:52 ` Vineet Gupta
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=20260803170251.1898102-2-vineet.gupta@linux.dev \
--to=vineet.gupta@linux.dev \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.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