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 v6 04/10] bpf: Handle R2 as a return register in precision backtracking
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2026 21:22:02 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260817042202.2288574-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260817042141.2286086-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Precision backtracking treats only R0 as a return register at a
call/return boundary, so once the verifier starts modeling R2 that way,
marking the second half of such a return precise would trip the
"unexpected regs" checks in backtrack_insn() and reject a valid
program.
Marking the upper half precise, for example by branching on it after a
call to a static subprogram, walks backtracking into the callee and
reaches its BPF_EXIT with R2 still set in the mask. Handle R2 like R0
in boundaries where a call defines the return registers.
R2 differs from R0 in that it is an argument register as well, so it is
part of the BPF_REGMASK_ARGS check and has to be cleared before that check
rather than next to R0. Clear it unconditionally, rather than only where
the callee or the kfunc really does return a pair. That gives up the
"unexpected regs" assertion for R2, and in exchange keeps backtracking
free of any BTF lookup. Nothing is lost: a callee that does not return
a pair leaves the caller's R2 uninitialized, so the main verification
pass has already rejected any program that reads it, and backtracking
is never asked for its precision.
At BPF_EXIT the return registers are sampled before the callback path
clears R1-R5. That clear does not touch R0, but it does cover R2, and
running it first would drop a pair return whenever the instruction
following the call happens to be one that invokes a callback.
Suggested-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
---
kernel/bpf/backtrack.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/backtrack.c b/kernel/bpf/backtrack.c
index a2b18a9f1694..653db80bcc47 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/backtrack.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/backtrack.c
@@ -423,6 +423,10 @@ static int backtrack_insn(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx, int subseq_idx,
*/
verifier_bug_if(idx + 1 != subseq_idx, env,
"extra insn from subprog");
+ /* global subprog always sets R0 */
+ bt_clear_reg(bt, BPF_REG_0);
+ /* and if it does not set R2, main pass would catch it */
+ bt_clear_reg(bt, BPF_REG_2);
/* r1-r5 are invalidated after subprog call,
* so for global func call it shouldn't be set
* anymore
@@ -432,8 +436,6 @@ static int backtrack_insn(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx, int subseq_idx,
bt_reg_mask(bt));
return -EFAULT;
}
- /* global subprog always sets R0 */
- bt_clear_reg(bt, BPF_REG_0);
return 0;
} else {
/* static subprog call instruction, which
@@ -506,6 +508,8 @@ static int backtrack_insn(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx, int subseq_idx,
return -ENOTSUPP;
/* regular helper call sets R0 */
bt_clear_reg(bt, BPF_REG_0);
+ /* kfunc might also set R2 */
+ bt_clear_reg(bt, BPF_REG_2);
if (bt_reg_mask(bt) & BPF_REGMASK_ARGS) {
/* if backtracking was looking for registers R1-R5
* they should have been found already.
@@ -520,7 +524,25 @@ static int backtrack_insn(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx, int subseq_idx,
return -EFAULT;
}
} else if (opcode == BPF_EXIT) {
- bool r0_precise;
+ bool from_subprog_call, r0_precise, r2_precise;
+
+ /* BPF_EXIT in subprog or callback always returns
+ * right after the call instruction, so by checking
+ * whether the instruction at subseq_idx-1 is subprog
+ * call or not we can distinguish actual exit from
+ * *subprog* from exit from *callback*. In the former
+ * case, we need to propagate the precision of the
+ * return registers, if necessary. In the latter we
+ * never do that.
+ */
+ from_subprog_call = subseq_idx - 1 >= 0 &&
+ bpf_pseudo_call(&env->prog->insnsi[subseq_idx - 1]);
+
+ /* Sample the return registers before the callback
+ * handling below clears R1-R5.
+ */
+ r0_precise = from_subprog_call && bt_is_reg_set(bt, BPF_REG_0);
+ r2_precise = from_subprog_call && bt_is_reg_set(bt, BPF_REG_2);
/* Backtracking to a nested function call, 'idx' is a part of
* the inner frame 'subseq_idx' is a part of the outer frame.
@@ -533,30 +555,22 @@ static int backtrack_insn(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx, int subseq_idx,
if (subseq_idx >= 0 && bpf_calls_callback(env, subseq_idx))
for (i = BPF_REG_1; i <= BPF_REG_5; i++)
bt_clear_reg(bt, i);
+
+ bt_clear_reg(bt, BPF_REG_0);
+ bt_clear_reg(bt, BPF_REG_2);
if (bt_reg_mask(bt) & BPF_REGMASK_ARGS) {
verifier_bug(env, "backtracking exit unexpected regs %x",
bt_reg_mask(bt));
return -EFAULT;
}
- /* BPF_EXIT in subprog or callback always returns
- * right after the call instruction, so by checking
- * whether the instruction at subseq_idx-1 is subprog
- * call or not we can distinguish actual exit from
- * *subprog* from exit from *callback*. In the former
- * case, we need to propagate r0 precision, if
- * necessary. In the former we never do that.
- */
- r0_precise = subseq_idx - 1 >= 0 &&
- bpf_pseudo_call(&env->prog->insnsi[subseq_idx - 1]) &&
- bt_is_reg_set(bt, BPF_REG_0);
-
- bt_clear_reg(bt, BPF_REG_0);
if (bt_subprog_enter(bt))
return -EFAULT;
if (r0_precise)
bt_set_reg(bt, BPF_REG_0);
+ if (r2_precise)
+ bt_set_reg(bt, BPF_REG_2);
/* r6-r9 and stack slots will stay set in caller frame
* bitmasks until we return back from callee(s)
*/
--
2.53.0-Meta
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-17 4:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-17 4:21 [PATCH bpf-next v6 00/10] bpf: Support aggregate return values up to 16 bytes Yonghong Song
2026-08-17 4:21 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 01/10] bpf: Factor check_global_ret_scalar_reg() out of the global return check Yonghong Song
2026-08-17 4:21 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 02/10] bpf: Add helpers to describe the R0:R2 return register pair Yonghong Song
2026-08-17 5:17 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-17 4:21 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 03/10] bpf: Wire up JIT support for 16-byte kfunc returns Yonghong Song
2026-08-17 4:37 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-17 4:22 ` Yonghong Song [this message]
2026-08-17 5:17 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 04/10] bpf: Handle R2 as a return register in precision backtracking bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-17 4:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 05/10] bpf: Account R2 of register-pair returns in live register analysis Yonghong Song
2026-08-17 4:43 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-17 4:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 06/10] bpf: Add verifier support for 16-byte returns in R0:R2 Yonghong Song
2026-08-17 4:42 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-17 5:17 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-17 4:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 07/10] bpf: Enable aggregate return types up to 16 bytes Yonghong Song
2026-08-17 4:42 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-17 4:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 08/10] selftests/bpf: Add C tests for 16-byte returns in R0:R2 Yonghong Song
2026-08-17 4:45 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-17 4:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 09/10] selftests/bpf: Add inline-asm and subprog tests for R0:R2 returns Yonghong Song
2026-08-17 4:42 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-17 5:17 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-17 4:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 10/10] 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=20260817042202.2288574-1-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