BPF List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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


  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