From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
To: eddyz87@gmail.com
Cc: memxor@gmail.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/3] selftests/bpf: Add tests for fault prone loads out of RCU pointers
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2026 16:10:14 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260817141015.878071-2-daniel@iogearbox.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260817141015.878071-1-daniel@iogearbox.net>
Cover the two loads which used to lose the BPF_PROBE_MEM rewrite, both reached
from an RCU read-side critical section. The purpose of this patch is to assert
load success in order to make sure to not trigger verifier_bug_if() on
bpf_may_fault_on_deref() due to forgotten rewrite of a probed pointer.
# LDLIBS=-static PKG_CONFIG='pkg-config --static' ./vmtest.sh -- ./test_progs -t rcu_read_lock
[...]
#332/1 rcu_read_lock/success:OK
#332/2 rcu_read_lock/rcuptr_acquire:OK
#332/3 rcu_read_lock/negative_tests_inproper_region:OK
#332/4 rcu_read_lock/negative_tests_rcuptr_misuse:OK
#332 rcu_read_lock:OK
Summary: 1/4 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0/0 FAILED
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
---
.../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/rcu_read_lock.c | 2 +
.../selftests/bpf/progs/rcu_read_lock.c | 76 +++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 78 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/rcu_read_lock.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/rcu_read_lock.c
index 246eb259c08a..6a07b2b418d1 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/rcu_read_lock.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/rcu_read_lock.c
@@ -34,6 +34,8 @@ static void test_success(void)
bpf_program__set_autoload(skel->progs.rcu_read_lock_global_subprog, true);
bpf_program__set_autoload(skel->progs.rcu_read_lock_subprog_lock, true);
bpf_program__set_autoload(skel->progs.rcu_read_lock_subprog_unlock, true);
+ bpf_program__set_autoload(skel->progs.non_own_ref_untrusted_ld, true);
+ bpf_program__set_autoload(skel->progs.rcu_untrusted_union_ld, true);
err = rcu_read_lock__load(skel);
if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "skel_load"))
goto out;
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/rcu_read_lock.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/rcu_read_lock.c
index b4e073168fb1..31d4081c3a9f 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/rcu_read_lock.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/rcu_read_lock.c
@@ -549,3 +549,79 @@ int rcu_read_lock_sleepable_global_subprog_indirect(void *ctx)
bpf_rcu_read_unlock();
return 0;
}
+
+struct rcu_node_data {
+ long key;
+ struct bpf_rb_node node;
+};
+
+struct rcu_node_stash {
+ struct rcu_node_data __kptr *node;
+};
+
+/*
+ * Necessary so that LLVM emits BTF for rcu_node_data rather than just a
+ * fwd reference to it, same as in progs/local_kptr_stash.c.
+ */
+struct rcu_node_data *just_here_because_btf_bug;
+
+struct {
+ __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_ARRAY);
+ __uint(max_entries, 1);
+ __type(key, int);
+ __type(value, struct rcu_node_stash);
+} node_stash SEC(".maps");
+
+long non_own_ref_key;
+
+SEC("?fentry.s/" SYS_PREFIX "sys_getpgid")
+int non_own_ref_untrusted_ld(void *ctx)
+{
+ struct rcu_node_stash *stash;
+ struct rcu_node_data *node;
+ int key = 0;
+
+ stash = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&node_stash, &key);
+ if (!stash)
+ return 0;
+ bpf_rcu_read_lock();
+ node = stash->node;
+ if (!node) {
+ bpf_rcu_read_unlock();
+ return 0;
+ }
+ bpf_rcu_read_unlock();
+ /*
+ * The unlock leaves node as PTR_TO_BTF_ID | MEM_ALLOC | PTR_UNTRUSTED
+ * | NON_OWN_REF, and the load below has to get the BPF_PROBE_MEM
+ * rewrite for it, otherwise a bad address panics the kernel.
+ */
+ non_own_ref_key = node->key;
+ return 0;
+}
+
+long rcu_untrusted_wq_flags;
+
+SEC("?tp_btf/tcp_probe")
+int BPF_PROG(rcu_untrusted_union_ld, struct sock *sk)
+{
+ struct socket_wq *wq;
+
+ /*
+ * sk_wq sits in a two member union, so btf_struct_walk() marks the
+ * pointer PTR_UNTRUSTED, and the __rcu tag on the member adds MEM_RCU
+ * on top of it. struct sock is not on the __safe_rcu_or_null allow
+ * list, hence the two stay combined and the load below has to get the
+ * BPF_PROBE_MEM rewrite for PTR_TO_BTF_ID | PTR_UNTRUSTED | MEM_RCU,
+ * otherwise a bad address panics the kernel.
+ *
+ * The __rcu tag only reaches BTF on a clang built kernel, that is, one
+ * with CONFIG_PAHOLE_HAS_BTF_TAG. On a gcc built kernel the walk yields
+ * a plain untrusted pointer, which is rewritten either way.
+ */
+ wq = sk->sk_wq;
+ if (!wq)
+ return 0;
+ rcu_untrusted_wq_flags = wq->flags;
+ return 0;
+}
--
2.43.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-17 14:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-17 14:10 [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/3] selftests/bpf: Add tests for pointer type merge at a shared load Daniel Borkmann
2026-08-17 14:10 ` Daniel Borkmann [this message]
2026-08-17 14:10 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 3/3] selftests/bpf: Add tests for a store on a fault prone qdisc pointer Daniel Borkmann
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=20260817141015.878071-2-daniel@iogearbox.net \
--to=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=memxor@gmail.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