From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi" <memxor@gmail.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 13/14] bpf: Reject tracing/freplace progs for struct_ops with arena args
Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2026 01:17:09 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260808011710.3A1391F00A3A@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260808003938.3486067-14-memxor@gmail.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Critical] The patch restricts attaching extension or tracing programs to the main program (`subprog == 0`) of a target with arena context arguments, but explicitly fails to restrict attachments to global subprograms (`subprog > 0`). This leaves a type confusion vulnerability open where a 32-bit user-controlled arena offset is treated as a trusted 64-bit kernel pointer.
- [High] A `WARN_ON_ONCE` check in the trampoline linking code incorrectly validates the attached tracing/extension program instead of the target program, rendering the safety check ineffective.
--
--- Patch [13]: [PATCH bpf-next v5 13/14] bpf: Reject tracing/freplace progs for struct_ops with arena args ---
commit b54b0858382f938c9a42e0941274db3241ba575f
Author: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
bpf: Reject tracing/freplace progs for struct_ops with arena args
This commit restricts attaching tracing and extension programs to a target
program with arena context arguments. The restriction is added because the
struct_ops indirect trampoline converts these arguments, and a generic
tracing trampoline would expose the converted offset as a regular BTF
pointer.
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index 74592272b124d..4bb3102ae4333 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -19258,6 +19258,16 @@ int bpf_check_attach_target(struct bpf_verifier_log *log,
> bpf_log(log, "Subprog %s doesn't exist\n", tname);
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> + /*
> + * A struct_ops indirect trampoline converts arena arguments
> + * before invoking its program. A tracing or extension program
> + * attached to the main program would see the converted offset as a
> + * regular BTF pointer.
> + */
> + if (subprog == 0 && bpf_prog_has_arena_ctx_arg(tgt_prog)) {
[Severity: Critical]
Does this code leave a type confusion vulnerability open for global
subprograms?
This check explicitly requires subprog == 0 and relies on ctx_arg_info from
the main program, bypassing protection for attachments to global subprograms.
Can an attacker load a struct_ops program that passes its converted 32-bit
arena offset to a global subprogram taking a struct bpf_arena * argument with
the __arg_arena tag, and then attach an fentry tracing program to the global
subprogram?
In btf_ctx_access(), this loop is skipped for fentry programs because their
ctx_arg_info_size is 0:
kernel/bpf/btf.c:btf_ctx_access() {
...
for (i = 0; i < prog->aux->ctx_arg_info_size; i++) {
...
}
Would this cause the verifier to fall through, ignore the __arg_arena tag,
and incorrectly type the intercepted 32-bit offset as a 64-bit
PTR_TO_BTF_ID | PTR_TRUSTED kernel pointer, leading to arbitrary
out-of-bounds kernel memory read/write?
> + bpf_log(log, "Cannot attach to a target with arena context arguments\n");
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> + }
> if (aux->func && aux->func[subprog]->aux->exception_cb) {
> bpf_log(log,
> "%s programs cannot attach to exception callback\n",
[Severity: High]
Does the WARN_ON_ONCE check in the trampoline linking code incorrectly
validate the attached tracing/extension program instead of the target
program?
In __bpf_trampoline_link_prog():
kernel/bpf/trampoline.c:__bpf_trampoline_link_prog() {
...
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(bpf_prog_has_arena_ctx_arg(node->link->prog)))
return -ENOTSUPP;
...
}
When an fentry or freplace program is linked via bpf_trampoline_link_prog(),
__bpf_trampoline_link_prog() calls bpf_prog_has_arena_ctx_arg() with
node->link->prog.
Since node->link->prog is the fentry/freplace program (which never has
ctx_arg_info populated), doesn't this check always evaluate to false?
Should it have checked tgt_prog instead, so it doesn't fail to prevent
generic trampolines from attaching to programs with arena arguments?
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260808003938.3486067-1-memxor@gmail.com?part=13
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-08 1:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-08 0:39 [PATCH bpf-next v5 00/14] Add arena argument support to kfuncs and struct_ops Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-08 0:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 01/14] bpf: Rename 'early' BTF checking as a preparation phase Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-08 0:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 02/14] bpf: Split subprogram and kfunc collection Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-08 1:59 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-08 0:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 03/14] bpf: Collect kfuncs after resolving program resources Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-08 0:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 04/14] bpf: Support __arena and __arena__nullable kfunc argument suffixes Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-08 0:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 05/14] bpf: Support __arena and __arena__nullable on struct_ops arguments Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-08 1:17 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-08 9:49 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-08-08 0:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 06/14] bpf, x86: JIT __arena kfunc argument rebasing Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-08 0:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 07/14] bpf, x86: Convert struct_ops arena arguments in the trampoline Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-08 0:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 08/14] selftests/bpf: Add kfunc __arena and __arena__nullable argument tests Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-08 0:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 09/14] selftests/bpf: Add JIT-sequence tests for __arena kfunc arguments Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-08 0:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 10/14] selftests/bpf: Add struct_ops __arena and __arena__nullable argument tests Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-08 1:03 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-08 0:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 11/14] bpf, x86: Fix stack-passed arguments for indirect trampolines Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-08 1:04 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-08 0:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 12/14] selftests/bpf: Test stack-passed struct_ops arena arguments Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-08 0:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 13/14] bpf: Reject tracing/freplace progs for struct_ops with arena args Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-08 1:17 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-08-08 9:57 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-08-08 0:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 14/14] selftests/bpf: Test attach rejection for struct_ops arena programs Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-08 9:58 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-08-08 10:10 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 00/14] Add arena argument support to kfuncs and struct_ops patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
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=20260808011710.3A1391F00A3A@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--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