BPF List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
	kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v2 08/13] bpf: Reject register-pair returns when the subprog BTF is unreliable
Date: Tue,  4 Aug 2026 13:36:03 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260804203603.1874576-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260804203522.1869244-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev>

The R0:R2 return convention is derived from the BTF function prototype:
bpf_compute_subprog_ret_regs() inspects the return type of every
subprogram and records whether its value comes back in a register pair.

btf_check_subprog_call() can decide, at a call site, that this BTF is
not to be trusted and mark the subprogram unreliable, which happens when
compiler optimizations remove arguments from a static function or when a
mismatched type is passed to a global one. From that point on the
verifier falls back to conservative, R0-only, semantics for the
subprogram, while the compiled code keeps returning a pair and leaves
the upper half in R2 behind the verifier's back.

Rather than silently mistracking R2, reject a return value larger than
8 bytes as soon as the prototype it was derived from becomes unreliable.
Add subprog_ret_pair_unreliable() and test it at the two places that can
observe the flag: check_func_call(), for the call itself, and
prepare_func_exit(), for the return from an inlined static subprogram.

Note that the main program needs no such check: a >8 byte return from
subprog 0 is rejected at BPF_EXIT regardless of whether its BTF is
reliable. Callbacks need none either: a callback address only becomes a
PTR_TO_FUNC through check_ld_imm(), which already rejects any callback
returning more than 8 bytes.

Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 60b9e587e094..4bf4e855d0e3 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -437,6 +437,21 @@ static void bpf_compute_subprog_ret_regs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
 	}
 }
 
+/*
+ * A >8 byte BPF return changes the calling convention to R0:R2, so the
+ * verifier can only allow it while the subprogram's prototype remains
+ * reliable. Once BTF is marked unreliable, reject the feature instead of
+ * silently falling back to R0-only semantics.
+ */
+static bool subprog_ret_pair_unreliable(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int subprog)
+{
+	struct bpf_prog_aux *aux = env->prog->aux;
+
+	return bpf_ret_reg_pair(env, subprog) &&
+	       aux->func_info_aux &&
+	       aux->func_info_aux[subprog].unreliable;
+}
+
 static const char *subprog_name(const struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int subprog)
 {
 	struct bpf_func_info *info;
@@ -9543,6 +9558,11 @@ static int check_func_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn,
 	err = btf_check_subprog_call(env, subprog, caller->regs);
 	if (err == -EFAULT)
 		return err;
+	if (subprog_ret_pair_unreliable(env, subprog)) {
+		verbose(env, "Func#%d ('%s') returns >8 bytes, which requires reliable BTF\n",
+			subprog, subprog_name(env, subprog));
+		return -EINVAL;
+	}
 	if (bpf_subprog_is_global(env, subprog)) {
 		const char *sub_name = subprog_name(env, subprog);
 
@@ -9918,6 +9938,11 @@ static int prepare_func_exit(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int *insn_idx)
 
 	callee = state->frame[state->curframe];
 	r0 = &callee->regs[BPF_REG_0];
+	if (subprog_ret_pair_unreliable(env, callee->subprogno)) {
+		verbose(env, "Func#%d ('%s') returns >8 bytes, which requires reliable BTF\n",
+			callee->subprogno, subprog_name(env, callee->subprogno));
+		return -EINVAL;
+	}
 	nregs = bpf_ret_reg_pair(env, callee->subprogno) ? 2 : 1;
 	if (nregs > 1)
 		env->prog->jit_required = 1;
-- 
2.53.0-Meta


  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-08-04 20:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-08-04 20:35 [PATCH v2 00/13] bpf: Support aggregate return values up to 16 bytes Yonghong Song
2026-08-04 20:35 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 01/13] bpf: Factor check_global_ret_scalar_reg() out of the global return check Yonghong Song
2026-08-04 20:35 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 02/13] bpf: Add helpers to describe the R0:R2 return register pair Yonghong Song
2026-08-04 20:35 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 03/13] bpf: Wire up JIT support for 16-byte kfunc returns Yonghong Song
2026-08-04 20:35 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 04/13] bpf: Track R2 of register-pair returns in precision backtracking Yonghong Song
2026-08-04 20:35 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 05/13] bpf: Account R2 of register-pair returns in live register analysis Yonghong Song
2026-08-04 21:14   ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-04 20:35 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 06/13] bpf: Reject callbacks returning more than 8 bytes Yonghong Song
2026-08-04 21:54   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-04 20:35 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 07/13] bpf: Add verifier support for 16-byte returns in R0:R2 Yonghong Song
2026-08-04 20:52   ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-04 20:36 ` Yonghong Song [this message]
2026-08-04 20:36 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 09/13] bpf: Enable aggregate return types up to 16 bytes Yonghong Song
2026-08-04 20:36 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 10/13] selftests/bpf: Add C tests for 16-byte returns in R0:R2 Yonghong Song
2026-08-04 20:47   ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-04 20:36 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 11/13] selftests/bpf: Add inline-asm and subprog tests for R0:R2 returns Yonghong Song
2026-08-04 20:52   ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-04 20:36 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 12/13] selftests/bpf: Add tests for callbacks returning more than 8 bytes Yonghong Song
2026-08-04 20:36 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 13/13] Documentation/bpf: Document up to 16-byte kfunc return values in R0:R2 Yonghong Song

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=20260804203603.1874576-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev \
    --to=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.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