From: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Sashiko <sashiko-bot@kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@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 v1 01/14] bpf: Correct verifier diagnostic attribution for stack reads
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2026 03:57:29 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260816015746.2632990-2-memxor@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260816015746.2632990-1-memxor@gmail.com>
Verifier memory diagnostics currently label every fixed-offset stack
read rejected by check_stack_read_fixed_off() as uninitialized. Dynptr,
iterator, and IRQ-flag slots instead contain initialized verifier-managed
state, so the report incorrectly suggests initialization or CAP_PERFMON.
The variable-offset read without a destination register is reached by
atomic read-modify-write instructions, but its diagnostic attributes the
access to a helper.
Classify rejected stack reads by slot type. Retain the existing
uninitialized report for STACK_INVALID, and describe verifier-managed
slots as opaque state. Describe the variable-offset read as an atomic
operation while leaving the existing verifier messages unchanged.
Reported-by: Sashiko <sashiko-bot@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20260815065956.49D2B1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org/
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 63 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index d17f14b35b79..5d0a2d3ef594 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -3817,19 +3817,46 @@ static int mark_reg_stack_read(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
return 0;
}
-static void bpf_diag_stack_read_uninit(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int off, int i,
- int size)
+static void bpf_diag_stack_read_invalid(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int off, int i, int size,
+ enum bpf_stack_slot_type type)
{
- const char *reason;
+ const char *problem, *reason, *suggestion, *kind;
+
+ if (type == STACK_INVALID) {
+ reason = bpf_diag_fmt(
+ env, "This rejected read uses %d bytes at stack offset %d, but byte %d in that range is uninitialized on this path. "
+ "Programs loaded with CAP_PERFMON can be allowed to read uninitialized stack bytes, but this program is being rejected without that allowance.",
+ size, off, i);
+ bpf_diag_memory(
+ env, env->insn_idx, "uninitialized stack read", reason,
+ "Initialize every byte in the stack range before reading it, adjust the offset and size so the read covers only initialized bytes, "
+ "or load with CAP_PERFMON if uninitialized stack reads are intended.");
+ return;
+ }
- reason = bpf_diag_fmt(env,
- "This rejected read uses %d bytes at stack offset %d, but byte %d in that range is uninitialized on this path. "
- "Programs loaded with CAP_PERFMON can be allowed to read uninitialized stack bytes, but this program is being rejected without that allowance.",
- size, off, i);
- bpf_diag_memory(
- env, env->insn_idx, "uninitialized stack read", reason,
- "Initialize every byte in the stack range before reading it, adjust the offset and size so the read covers only initialized bytes, "
- "or load with CAP_PERFMON if uninitialized stack reads are intended.");
+ switch (type) {
+ case STACK_DYNPTR:
+ kind = "dynptr";
+ suggestion = "Use dynptr helpers or kfuncs to access the object represented by the dynptr instead of reading the dynptr state directly.";
+ break;
+ case STACK_ITER:
+ kind = "iterator";
+ suggestion = "Use iterator kfuncs to advance or destroy the iterator instead of reading its state directly.";
+ break;
+ case STACK_IRQ_FLAG:
+ kind = "IRQ flag";
+ suggestion = "Pass the saved IRQ flag to the matching restore kfunc instead of reading its state directly.";
+ break;
+ default:
+ return;
+ }
+
+ problem = bpf_diag_fmt(env, "direct read of %s stack state", kind);
+ reason = bpf_diag_fmt(
+ env, "This rejected read uses %d bytes at stack offset %d, but byte %d in that range belongs to verifier-managed %s state. "
+ "This state has an opaque representation that BPF programs cannot read directly.",
+ size, off, i, kind);
+ bpf_diag_memory(env, env->insn_idx, problem, reason, suggestion);
}
/* Read the stack at 'off' and put the results into the register indicated by
@@ -3921,7 +3948,7 @@ static int check_stack_read_fixed_off(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
} else {
verbose(env, "invalid read from stack off %d+%d size %d\n",
off, i, size);
- bpf_diag_stack_read_uninit(env, off, i, size);
+ bpf_diag_stack_read_invalid(env, off, i, size, type);
}
return -EACCES;
}
@@ -3980,7 +4007,7 @@ static int check_stack_read_fixed_off(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
} else {
verbose(env, "invalid read from stack off %d+%d size %d\n",
off, i, size);
- bpf_diag_stack_read_uninit(env, off, i, size);
+ bpf_diag_stack_read_invalid(env, off, i, size, type);
}
return -EACCES;
}
@@ -4079,13 +4106,13 @@ static int check_stack_read(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
tnum_strn(tn_buf, sizeof(tn_buf), reg->var_off);
verbose(env, "variable offset stack pointer cannot be passed into helper function; var_off=%s off=%d size=%d\n",
tn_buf, off, size);
- reason = bpf_diag_fmt(env,
- "The helper would access the stack through variable offset %s plus fixed offset %d and size %d. "
- "Helper stack memory arguments require a constant stack offset and a precise initialized range.",
+ reason = bpf_diag_fmt(
+ env, "The atomic operation would access the stack through variable offset %s plus fixed offset %d and size %d. "
+ "Atomic stack operations require a constant stack offset and a precise initialized range.",
tn_buf, off, size);
bpf_diag_memory(
- env, env->insn_idx, "variable stack access", reason,
- "Use a fixed stack offset for helper memory arguments, or copy the needed bytes into a fixed stack slot first.");
+ env, env->insn_idx, "variable-offset atomic stack access", reason,
+ "Use a fixed stack offset for the atomic operation, selecting the target stack slot on separate control-flow paths if necessary.");
return -EACCES;
}
/* Variable offset is prohibited for unprivileged mode for simplicity
--
2.53.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-16 1:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-16 1:57 [PATCH bpf-next v1 00/14] Follow ups for verifier errors set Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-16 1:57 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi [this message]
2026-08-16 6:34 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 01/14] bpf: Correct verifier diagnostic attribution for stack reads Eduard Zingerman
2026-08-16 1:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 02/14] selftests/bpf: Test verifier stack-read diagnostic attribution Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-16 2:45 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-16 6:35 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-08-16 1:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 03/14] bpf: Preserve R0 lineage across helper calls Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-16 2:30 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-16 6:12 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-08-16 6:36 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-08-16 1:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 04/14] bpf: Drop dead spill diagnostic condition Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-16 6:39 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-08-16 1:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 05/14] bpf: Use canonical stack argument names in diagnostics Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-16 6:40 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-08-16 1:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 06/14] bpf: Correct kfunc argument diagnostics Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-16 2:45 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-16 6:50 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-08-16 6:52 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-08-16 1:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 07/14] selftests/bpf: Test " Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-16 6:53 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-08-16 1:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 08/14] bpf: Report non-sleepable kfunc programs accurately Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-16 2:30 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-16 7:32 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-08-16 1:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 09/14] selftests/bpf: Test non-sleepable kfunc context Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-16 2:30 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-16 7:37 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-08-16 1:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 10/14] bpf: Correct Program Structure diagnostic context Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-16 2:45 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-16 7:58 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-08-16 1:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 11/14] bpf: Preserve source attribution without source text Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-16 8:01 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-08-16 1:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 12/14] selftests/bpf: Test Program Structure diagnostic context Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-16 8:06 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-08-16 1:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 13/14] bpf: Distinguish function references in policy diagnostics Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-16 8:09 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-08-16 1:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 14/14] selftests/bpf: Test pseudo-function " Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-16 2:45 ` 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=20260816015746.2632990-2-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 \
--cc=sashiko-bot@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