From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi" <memxor@gmail.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 05/14] bpf: Track verifier register diagnostic events
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2026 07:38:33 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260815073833.A93A91F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260815064612.378577-6-memxor@gmail.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] The old state of BPF_REG_0 is incorrectly recorded as NOT_INIT for helper calls, losing its lineage.
--
--- Patch [5]: [PATCH bpf-next v5 05/14] bpf: Track verifier register diagnostic events ---
commit 3cbb3352506d462a8a06bc8434f061a5dc31d13d
Author: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Subject: bpf: Track verifier register diagnostic events
This commit introduces verification diagnostic events to track material
register and outgoing stack argument changes. This allows diagnostics to
explain how a value reached its current state, type, or bounds.
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index db644690ac4bf..a5929e40f18d1 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -10518,12 +10594,14 @@ static int check_helper_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn
> return err;
>
> /* reset caller saved regs */
> + bpf_diag_record_caller_saved(env, regs);
> for (i = 0; i < CALLER_SAVED_REGS; i++) {
> bpf_mark_reg_not_init(env, ®s[caller_saved[i]]);
> check_reg_arg(env, caller_saved[i], DST_OP_NO_MARK);
> }
> invalidate_outgoing_stack_args(env, cur_func(env));
>
> + bpf_diag_mod_begin(env, ®s[BPF_REG_0], NULL, BPF_DIAG_MOD_WRITE);
[Severity: Medium]
Does this record the old state of BPF_REG_0 as NOT_INIT?
The loop just above this line in check_helper_call() scrubs all caller-saved
registers (which includes BPF_REG_0) by calling bpf_mark_reg_not_init().
Because the bpf_diag_mod_begin() snapshot is taken after this loop finishes,
it seems we might capture the already-scrubbed state instead of what R0
actually was before the helper call.
Could this break the diagnostic lineage tracking for the return register?
Perhaps the bpf_diag_mod_begin() snapshot should be taken before the
caller-saved registers are cleared?
> /* update return register (already marked as written above) */
> ret_type = fn->ret_type;
> ret_flag = type_flag(ret_type);
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260815064612.378577-1-memxor@gmail.com?part=5
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-15 7:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-15 6:45 [PATCH bpf-next v5 00/14] Redesign Verification Errors Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-15 6:45 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 01/14] bpf: Add verifier diagnostics report helpers Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-15 6:52 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-15 7:20 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-15 6:45 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 02/14] bpf: Add source and instruction diagnostic context Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-15 7:01 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-15 7:34 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-15 6:45 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 03/14] bpf: Add verifier diagnostic event log Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-15 7:34 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-15 6:45 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 04/14] bpf: Prune verifier diagnostics when switching paths Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-15 6:46 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 05/14] bpf: Track verifier register diagnostic events Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-15 7:34 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-15 7:38 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-08-15 6:46 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 06/14] bpf: Track verifier reference " Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-15 6:46 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 07/14] bpf: Track verifier context " Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-15 7:20 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-15 6:46 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 08/14] bpf: Report Register Type Safety errors Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-15 7:34 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-15 6:46 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 09/14] bpf: Report Memory Safety bounds errors Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-15 6:59 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-15 7:34 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-15 6:46 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 10/14] bpf: Report Resource Lifetime reference leaks Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-15 7:34 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-15 6:46 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 11/14] bpf: Report Call Type Safety argument errors Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-15 7:49 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-15 6:46 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 12/14] bpf: Report Execution Context Safety errors Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-15 7:34 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-15 6:46 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 13/14] bpf: Report Program Structure CFG errors Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-15 7:34 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-15 6:46 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 14/14] bpf: Report Policy helper and kfunc errors Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-15 7:20 ` bot+bpf-ci
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=20260815073833.A93A91F000E9@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