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
next prev 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