BPF List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org
Cc: andrii@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, martin.lau@linux.dev,
	kernel-team@fb.com, yonghong.song@linux.dev, npc@anthropic.com,
	Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf 2/2] selftests/bpf: test case for unsafe pruning of bpf_loop checkpoints
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2026 18:36:10 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260831-bug-015-backtrack-cb-args-precise-v1-2-68a8e2a821e0@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260831-bug-015-backtrack-cb-args-precise-v1-1-68a8e2a821e0@gmail.com>

The following BPF program was erroneously accepted by the verifier:

  static int cb(int i, __u64 *ctx)
  {
	/* unsafe on a second iteration */
	small_arr[*ctx] = i;
	*ctx = 100500;
	return 0;
  }
  int main(void *ctx)
  {
        int nr_loops = 1;
        u64 ctx = 0;
  	if (unlikely(bpf_get_prandom_u32() == 42))
        	nr_loops = 2;
        bpf_loop(nr_loops, cb, &ctx, 0);
        return 0;
  }

The branch with nr_loops == 1 was explored first and injected a
checkpoint at the entry to 'cb', such that nr_loops in the main's
frame was not marked as precise. This checkpoint pruned the state with
nr_loops == 2 and the program was accepted.

This test case corresponds to the program above.
Entry point is written in assembly to ensure branch processing order.

Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/iters.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/iters.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/iters.c
index 62d7df9e80be..c6699159dacd 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/iters.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/iters.c
@@ -2149,4 +2149,43 @@ __naked int stack_misc_vs_scalar_in_a_loop(void)
 	);
 }
 
+__used
+static int loop_cb5(int i, __u64 *ctx)
+{
+	/* unsafe on a second iteration */
+	small_arr[*ctx] = i;
+	*ctx = 100500;
+	return 0;
+}
+
+SEC("raw_tp")
+__flag(BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ)
+__failure __msg("memory access is {{.*}} and is outside of the object of size 64")
+__naked void loop_counter_precision_2nd_iter(void)
+{
+	asm volatile (
+		"call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];"
+		"*(u64 *)(r10 - 8) = 0;"
+		"r1 = 2;"
+		"if r0 == 42 goto +1;"
+		"r1 = 1;"
+		"r2 = loop_cb5 ll;"
+		"r3 = r10;"
+		"r3 += -8;"
+		"r4 = 0;"
+		/*
+		 * Explore with nr_loops=1 on a first path and nr_loops=2 on a second path.
+		 * Buggy verifier did not propagate r1 precision properly,
+		 * and thus checkpoints created for nr_loops=1 case matched nr_loops=2 case.
+		 */
+		"call %[bpf_loop];"
+		"r0 = 0;"
+		"exit;"
+		:
+		: __imm(bpf_loop),
+		  __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32)
+		: __clobber_all
+	);
+}
+
 char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";

-- 
2.53.0

  reply	other threads:[~2026-09-01  1:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-09-01  1:36 [PATCH bpf 1/2] bpf: backtracking shouldn't clear outer frame R1-R5 for callbacks Eduard Zingerman
2026-09-01  1:36 ` Eduard Zingerman [this message]
2026-09-01  2:02 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-01  6:20   ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-09-02 18:20 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf

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=20260831-bug-015-backtrack-cb-args-precise-v1-2-68a8e2a821e0@gmail.com \
    --to=eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
    --cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
    --cc=npc@anthropic.com \
    --cc=yonghong.song@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