From: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
Emil Tsalapatis <emil@etsalapatis.com>,
kkd@meta.com, kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v5 1/3] bpf: Show more useful info in stack depth stats
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2026 10:11:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260804081114.3871564-2-memxor@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260804081114.3871564-1-memxor@gmail.com>
Stack depth statistics list captured depths in subprogram-number order,
while per-verification instruction counts are reported separately. Since
libbpf determines subprogram numbers, it is hard to associate either
statistic with its subprogram name or see where verifier work is spent.
Keep the combined maximum stack depth on its own line, then print a record
for the main program and each subprogram:
stack depth max <depth>
prog (<name>) insns <count> stack <depth>
subprog <number> (<name>) insns <count> stack <depth>
When no subprogram name is available, print <unknown>. Keep the existing
aggregate "processed ... insns" record unchanged for compatibility.
Suggested-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 24 ++++++++++++-------
.../bpf/progs/verifier_basic_stack.c | 4 ++--
.../bpf/progs/verifier_bpf_fastcall.c | 23 +++++++++++-------
.../bpf/progs/verifier_global_subprogs.c | 2 +-
.../bpf/progs/verifier_private_stack.c | 15 +++++++++---
.../selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_var_off.c | 4 ++--
6 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index b274004fccfd..80c249906fd3 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -18777,15 +18777,21 @@ static void print_verification_stats(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
if (env->log.level & BPF_LOG_STATS) {
verbose(env, "verification time %lld usec\n",
div_u64(env->verification_time, 1000));
- verbose(env, "stack depth %d", env->subprog_info[0].stack_depth);
- for (i = 1; i < subprog_cnt; i++)
- verbose(env, "+%d", env->subprog_info[i].stack_depth);
- verbose(env, " max %d\n", env->max_stack_depth);
- verbose(env, "insns processed %d", env->subprog_info[0].insn_processed);
- for (i = 1; i < subprog_cnt; i++)
- if (bpf_subprog_is_global(env, i))
- verbose(env, "+%d", env->subprog_info[i].insn_processed);
- verbose(env, "\n");
+ verbose(env, "stack depth max %d\n", env->max_stack_depth);
+ for (i = 0; i < subprog_cnt; i++) {
+ const char *name = env->subprog_info[i].name;
+
+ if (!name || !name[0])
+ name = "<unknown>";
+ if (i == 0)
+ verbose(env, "prog (%s) insns %d stack %d\n", name,
+ env->subprog_info[i].insn_processed,
+ env->subprog_info[i].stack_depth);
+ else
+ verbose(env, "subprog %d (%s) insns %d stack %d\n", i, name,
+ env->subprog_info[i].insn_processed,
+ env->subprog_info[i].stack_depth);
+ }
}
verbose(env, "processed %d insns (limit %d) max_states_per_insn %d "
"total_states %d peak_states %d mark_read %d\n",
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_basic_stack.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_basic_stack.c
index fb62e09f2114..47b12c6f8efd 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_basic_stack.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_basic_stack.c
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ __naked void stack_out_of_bounds(void)
SEC("socket")
__description("uninitialized stack1")
-__success __log_level(4) __msg("stack depth 8")
+__success __log_level(4) __msg("prog (uninitialized_stack1) insns {{[0-9]+}} stack 8")
__failure_unpriv __msg_unpriv("invalid read from stack")
__naked void uninitialized_stack1(void)
{
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ __naked void uninitialized_stack1(void)
SEC("socket")
__description("uninitialized stack2")
-__success __log_level(4) __msg("stack depth 8")
+__success __log_level(4) __msg("prog (uninitialized_stack2) insns {{[0-9]+}} stack 8")
__failure_unpriv __msg_unpriv("invalid read from stack")
__naked void uninitialized_stack2(void)
{
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bpf_fastcall.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bpf_fastcall.c
index 83707faea049..43ce0bd8e4eb 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bpf_fastcall.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bpf_fastcall.c
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
SEC("raw_tp")
__arch_x86_64
-__log_level(4) __msg("stack depth 8")
+__log_level(4) __msg("prog (simple) insns {{[0-9]+}} stack 8")
__xlated("4: r5 = 5")
__xlated("5: r0 = ")
__xlated("6: r0 = &(void __percpu *)(r0)")
@@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ __naked void canary_zero_spills(void)
SEC("raw_tp")
__arch_x86_64
-__log_level(4) __msg("stack depth 16")
+__log_level(4) __msg("prog (wrong_reg_in_pattern1) insns {{[0-9]+}} stack 16")
__xlated("1: *(u64 *)(r10 -16) = r1")
__xlated("...")
__xlated("3: r0 = &(void __percpu *)(r0)")
@@ -598,7 +598,7 @@ __naked static void subprogs_use_independent_offsets_aux(void)
SEC("raw_tp")
__arch_x86_64
-__log_level(4) __msg("stack depth 8")
+__log_level(4) __msg("prog (helper_call_does_not_prevent_bpf_fastcall) insns {{[0-9]+}} stack 8")
__xlated("2: r0 = &(void __percpu *)(r0)")
__success
__naked void helper_call_does_not_prevent_bpf_fastcall(void)
@@ -620,7 +620,7 @@ __naked void helper_call_does_not_prevent_bpf_fastcall(void)
SEC("raw_tp")
__arch_x86_64
-__log_level(4) __msg("stack depth 24")
+__log_level(4) __msg("prog (may_goto_interaction_x86_64) insns {{[0-9]+}} stack 24")
/* may_goto counter at -24 */
__xlated("0: *(u64 *)(r10 -24) =")
/* may_goto timestamp at -16 */
@@ -661,7 +661,7 @@ __naked void may_goto_interaction_x86_64(void)
SEC("raw_tp")
__arch_arm64
__arch_riscv64
-__log_level(4) __msg("stack depth 24")
+__log_level(4) __msg("prog (may_goto_interaction) insns {{[0-9]+}} stack 24")
/* may_goto counter at -24 */
__xlated("0: *(u64 *)(r10 -24) =")
/* may_goto timestamp at -16 */
@@ -708,7 +708,9 @@ __naked static void dummy_loop_callback(void)
SEC("raw_tp")
__arch_x86_64
-__log_level(4) __msg("stack depth 32+0")
+__log_level(4)
+__msg("prog (bpf_loop_interaction1) insns {{[0-9]+}} stack 32")
+__msg("subprog 1 (dummy_loop_callback) insns {{[0-9]+}} stack 0")
__xlated("2: r1 = 1")
__xlated("3: r0 =")
__xlated("4: r0 = &(void __percpu *)(r0)")
@@ -756,7 +758,9 @@ __naked int bpf_loop_interaction1(void)
SEC("raw_tp")
__arch_x86_64
-__log_level(4) __msg("stack depth 40+0")
+__log_level(4)
+__msg("prog (bpf_loop_interaction2) insns {{[0-9]+}} stack 40")
+__msg("subprog 1 (dummy_loop_callback) insns {{[0-9]+}} stack 0")
/* call bpf_get_smp_processor_id */
__xlated("2: r1 = 42")
__xlated("3: r0 =")
@@ -800,7 +804,10 @@ __naked int bpf_loop_interaction2(void)
SEC("raw_tp")
__arch_x86_64
-__log_level(4) __msg("stack depth 512+0 max 512")
+__log_level(4)
+__msg("stack depth max 512")
+__msg("prog (cumulative_stack_depth) insns {{[0-9]+}} stack 512")
+__msg("subprog 1 (cumulative_stack_depth_subprog) insns {{[0-9]+}} stack 0")
/* just to print xlated version when debugging */
__xlated("r0 = &(void __percpu *)(r0)")
__success
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_global_subprogs.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_global_subprogs.c
index 67dc352addfd..1755f133f020 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_global_subprogs.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_global_subprogs.c
@@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ __msg("('global_calls_good_only') is global and assumed valid.")
/* eventually global_good() is transitively validated as well */
__msg("Validating global_good() func")
__msg("('global_good') is safe for any args that match its prototype")
-__msg("insns processed {{[0-9]+\\+[0-9]+\\+[0-9]+$}}")
+__msg("prog (chained_global_func_calls_success) insns {{[0-9]+}} stack")
int chained_global_func_calls_success(void)
{
int sum = 0;
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_private_stack.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_private_stack.c
index bb8206e10880..ab5c53c30a0c 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_private_stack.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_private_stack.c
@@ -86,7 +86,9 @@ __naked static void cumulative_stack_depth_subprog(void)
SEC("kprobe")
__description("Private stack, subtree > MAX_BPF_STACK")
__success
-__log_level(4) __msg("stack depth 512+32 max 512")
+__log_level(4) __msg("stack depth max 512")
+__msg("prog (private_stack_nested_1) insns {{[0-9]+}} stack 512")
+__msg("subprog 1 (cumulative_stack_depth_subprog) insns {{[0-9]+}} stack 32")
__arch_x86_64
/* private stack fp for the main prog */
__jited(" movabsq $0x{{.*}}, %r9")
@@ -331,7 +333,11 @@ SEC("fentry/bpf_fentry_test9")
__description("Private stack, async callback, potential nesting")
__success __retval(0)
__load_if_JITed()
-__log_level(4) __msg("stack depth 8+0+256+0 max 272")
+__log_level(4) __msg("stack depth max 272")
+__msg("prog (private_stack_async_callback_2) insns {{[0-9]+}} stack 8")
+__msg("subprog 1 (timer_cb1) insns {{[0-9]+}} stack 0")
+__msg("subprog 2 (subprog1) insns {{[0-9]+}} stack 256")
+__msg("subprog 3 (subprog2) insns {{[0-9]+}} stack 0")
__arch_x86_64
__jited(" subq $0x100, %rsp")
__arch_arm64
@@ -355,7 +361,10 @@ int private_stack_async_callback_2(void)
SEC("fentry/bpf_fentry_test9")
__description("private stack, max stack depth is private stack")
__success
-__log_level(4) __msg("stack depth 8+256+0 max 256")
+__log_level(4) __msg("stack depth max 256")
+__msg("prog (private_stack_max_depth) insns {{[0-9]+}} stack 8")
+__msg("subprog 1 (subprog1) insns {{[0-9]+}} stack 256")
+__msg("subprog 2 (subprog2) insns {{[0-9]+}} stack 0")
int private_stack_max_depth(void)
{
int x = 0;
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_var_off.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_var_off.c
index 24cd0a763673..6eb7d3ae49e8 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_var_off.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_var_off.c
@@ -198,7 +198,7 @@ __success
/* Check that the maximum stack depth is correctly maintained according to the
* maximum possible variable offset.
*/
-__log_level(4) __msg("stack depth 16")
+__log_level(4) __msg("prog (stack_write_priv_vs_unpriv) insns {{[0-9]+}} stack 16")
__failure_unpriv
/* Variable stack access is rejected for unprivileged.
*/
@@ -238,7 +238,7 @@ __success
/* Check that the maximum stack depth is correctly maintained according to the
* maximum possible variable offset.
*/
-__log_level(4) __msg("stack depth 16")
+__log_level(4) __msg("prog (stack_write_followed_by_read) insns {{[0-9]+}} stack 16")
__failure_unpriv
__msg_unpriv("R2 variable stack access prohibited for !root")
__retval(0)
--
2.53.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-04 8:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-04 8:11 [PATCH bpf-next v5 0/3] Improve stack depth verification stats output Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-04 8:11 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi [this message]
2026-08-04 8:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 1/3] bpf: Show more useful info in stack depth stats sashiko-bot
2026-08-04 8:40 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-04 9:31 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-04 9:48 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-04 8:11 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 2/3] selftests/bpf: Adjust veristat stack depth parsing Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-04 8:11 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 3/3] selftests/bpf: Test stack depth stats without BTF subprog names Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
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=20260804081114.3871564-2-memxor@gmail.com \
--to=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=emil@etsalapatis.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=kkd@meta.com \
/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