BPF List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Nicholas Carlini <npc@anthropic.com>,
	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 v1 03/10] bpf: Reject tail calls directly from callback frames
Date: Thu,  3 Sep 2026 16:44:21 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260903144433.1716731-4-memxor@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260903144433.1716731-1-memxor@gmail.com>

A tail call from a non-zero frame is modeled as a return from that frame.
The verifier makes R0 unknown and calls prepare_func_exit() for the taken
branch.

When the current frame is a synchronous callback, prepare_func_exit()
enforces the callback return-value contract and marks R0 precise. Since the
tail-call path synthesized R0 rather than deriving it from an instruction,
precision backtracking reaches the callback-calling instruction with R0
still requested and triggers the "callback unexpected regs" verifier bug.
A CAP_BPF task can therefore cause a WARN and an -EFAULT BPF_PROG_LOAD.

Tail calls reachable from callbacks are already rejected later by
check_max_stack_depth(). Reject a tail call made directly by a callback
before constructing the inconsistent return state, using the existing
diagnostic. Tail calls from ordinary subprograms keep their current
behavior.

Fixes: e3245f899043 ("bpf: properly verify tail call behavior")
Reported-by: Nicholas Carlini <npc@anthropic.com>
Suggested-by: Nicholas Carlini <npc@anthropic.com>
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 11 +++++++++++
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 7d8ddb1bee00..f540279ff4ab 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -11228,6 +11228,17 @@ static int check_helper_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn
 		if (env->cur_state->curframe) {
 			struct bpf_verifier_state *branch;
 
+			/*
+			 * A taken tail call is modeled as a return from the current
+			 * frame. A callback frame cannot be left that way because
+			 * prepare_func_exit() would apply its return contract to the
+			 * unknown R0 synthesized below. Stack-depth validation rejects
+			 * this construct anyway.
+			 */
+			if (cur_func(env)->in_callback_fn) {
+				verbose(env, "cannot tail call within callback\n");
+				return -EINVAL;
+			}
 			mark_reg_scratched(env, BPF_REG_0);
 			branch = push_stack(env, env->insn_idx + 1, env->insn_idx, false);
 			if (IS_ERR(branch))
-- 
2.53.0


  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-09-03 14:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-09-03 14:44 [PATCH bpf v1 00/10] Misc bug fixes - part 1 Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-03 14:44 ` [PATCH bpf v1 01/10] bpf: Mark signal tracepoint siginfo arguments as scalar Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-03 15:52   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-03 16:47     ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-03 14:44 ` [PATCH bpf v1 02/10] selftests/bpf: Cover signal tracepoint siginfo sentinels Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-03 15:52   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-03 14:44 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi [this message]
2026-09-03 15:21   ` [PATCH bpf v1 03/10] bpf: Reject tail calls directly from callback frames sashiko-bot
2026-09-03 15:36     ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-03 14:44 ` [PATCH bpf v1 04/10] selftests/bpf: Test direct tail calls from callbacks Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-03 14:44 ` [PATCH bpf v1 05/10] bpf: Reject resilient lock operations in rbtree callbacks Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-03 15:31   ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-03 15:36     ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-03 14:44 ` [PATCH bpf v1 06/10] selftests/bpf: Reject resilient unlock in rbtree callback Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-03 15:52   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-03 14:44 ` [PATCH bpf v1 07/10] bpf: Mark sched_process_wait argument as nullable Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-03 15:52   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-03 14:44 ` [PATCH bpf v1 08/10] selftests/bpf: Test sched_process_wait nullable argument Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-03 14:44 ` [PATCH bpf v1 09/10] bpf: Mark syscall helpers as sleepable Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-03 15:51   ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-03 15:54     ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-03 15:52   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-03 14:44 ` [PATCH bpf v1 10/10] selftests/bpf: Check syscall helpers in timer callbacks Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-03 16:50 ` [PATCH bpf v1 00/10] Misc bug fixes - part 1 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=20260903144433.1716731-4-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=npc@anthropic.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