From: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Emil Tsalapatis <emil@etsalapatis.com>,
Nicholas Carlini <npc@anthropic.com>,
kkd@meta.com, kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v5 05/10] selftests/bpf: Test early in-kernel CO-RE relocation
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2026 23:20:52 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260916212102.597335-6-memxor@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260916212102.597335-1-memxor@gmail.com>
Add a raw program load with CO-RE relocation metadata but no func_info or
line_info. Place the relocation in dead code and require the poisoning log,
proving that the kernel processes standalone CO-RE metadata instead of
silently skipping it.
Also poison a subprogram's terminal exit and require check_subprogs() to
reject the resulting fall-through. This confirms that in-kernel CO-RE runs
before the verifier validates the subprogram layout and before later CFG
consumers rely on it.
Load both instruction streams without relocation metadata first to ensure
that CO-RE processing causes the rejection and diagnostic. Encode the fixed
BTF metadata directly with the selftest BTF helpers.
Add a verifier case whose instruction stream ends after the first ldimm64
slot to cover the early structural check that protects relocation processing.
Suggested-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
---
.../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/core_reloc_raw.c | 124 ++++++++++++++++++
.../testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/ld_imm64.c | 8 ++
2 files changed, 132 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/core_reloc_raw.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/core_reloc_raw.c
index a18d3680fb16..ee267289fd88 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/core_reloc_raw.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/core_reloc_raw.c
@@ -14,6 +14,129 @@
static char log[16 * 1024];
+static int load_core_relo_insns(int btf_fd, struct bpf_insn *insns, int insn_cnt,
+ struct bpf_func_info *funcs, int func_cnt,
+ int enum_id, int access_str_off, int insn_idx,
+ bool relocate)
+{
+ struct bpf_core_relo relo = {
+ .insn_off = insn_idx * sizeof(struct bpf_insn),
+ .type_id = enum_id,
+ .access_str_off = access_str_off,
+ .kind = BPF_CORE_ENUMVAL_VALUE,
+ };
+ union bpf_attr attr = {
+ .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER,
+ .insn_cnt = insn_cnt,
+ .insns = (__u64)insns,
+ .license = (__u64)"GPL",
+ .log_buf = (__u64)log,
+ .log_size = sizeof(log),
+ .log_level = 2,
+ .prog_btf_fd = btf_fd,
+ .func_info_rec_size = sizeof(struct bpf_func_info),
+ .func_info = (__u64)funcs,
+ .func_info_cnt = func_cnt,
+ };
+
+ if (relocate) {
+ attr.core_relo_cnt = 1;
+ attr.core_relos = (__u64)&relo;
+ attr.core_relo_rec_size = sizeof(relo);
+ }
+ memset(log, 0, sizeof(log));
+ return sys_bpf_prog_load(&attr, sizeof(attr), 1);
+}
+
+static void test_early_core_relo(void)
+{
+ struct test_btf {
+ struct btf_header hdr;
+ __u32 types[18];
+ char strings[64];
+ } raw_btf = {
+ .hdr = {
+ .magic = BTF_MAGIC,
+ .version = BTF_VERSION,
+ .hdr_len = sizeof(struct btf_header),
+ .type_off = 0,
+ .type_len = sizeof(raw_btf.types),
+ .str_off = offsetof(struct test_btf, strings) -
+ offsetof(struct test_btf, types),
+ .str_len = sizeof(raw_btf.strings),
+ },
+ .types = {
+ BTF_TYPE_INT_ENC(1, BTF_INT_SIGNED, 0, 32, 4), /* [1] int */
+ BTF_FUNC_PROTO_ENC(1, 0), /* [2] int (*)(void) */
+ BTF_FUNC_ENC(5, 2), /* [3] main_fn */
+ BTF_FUNC_ENC(13, 2), /* [4] sub_fn */
+ BTF_TYPE_ENC(20, BTF_INFO_ENC(BTF_KIND_ENUM, 0, 1), 4), /* [5] enum */
+ BTF_ENUM_ENC(45, 0), /* value = 0 */
+ },
+ .strings = "\0int\0main_fn\0sub_fn\0core_relo_poison_missing\0value\0" "0",
+ };
+ struct bpf_func_info funcs[] = {
+ { .insn_off = 0, .type_id = 3 },
+ { .insn_off = 3, .type_id = 4 },
+ };
+ struct bpf_insn core_only[] = {
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ };
+ struct bpf_insn subprog[] = {
+ BPF_CALL_REL(2),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ };
+ int access_str_off = 51, enum_id = 5;
+ int btf_fd, prog_fd = -1;
+
+ btf_fd = bpf_btf_load(&raw_btf, sizeof(raw_btf), NULL);
+ if (!ASSERT_GE(btf_fd, 0, "btf_load"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ if (test__start_subtest("without_func_info")) {
+ prog_fd = load_core_relo_insns(btf_fd, core_only, ARRAY_SIZE(core_only), NULL, 0,
+ enum_id, access_str_off, 2, false);
+ if (!ASSERT_GE(prog_fd, 0, "control_load"))
+ goto cleanup;
+ close(prog_fd);
+ prog_fd = load_core_relo_insns(btf_fd, core_only, ARRAY_SIZE(core_only), NULL, 0,
+ enum_id, access_str_off, 2, true);
+ if (!ASSERT_GE(prog_fd, 0, "poisoned_load"))
+ goto cleanup;
+ ASSERT_HAS_SUBSTR(log, "substituting insn #2", "poison_log");
+ close(prog_fd);
+ prog_fd = -1;
+ }
+
+ if (test__start_subtest("poisoned_subprog_terminator")) {
+ prog_fd = load_core_relo_insns(btf_fd, subprog, ARRAY_SIZE(subprog), funcs, 2,
+ enum_id, access_str_off, 2, false);
+ if (!ASSERT_GE(prog_fd, 0, "control_load"))
+ goto cleanup;
+ close(prog_fd);
+ prog_fd = load_core_relo_insns(btf_fd, subprog, ARRAY_SIZE(subprog), funcs, 2,
+ enum_id, access_str_off, 2, true);
+ if (!ASSERT_LT(prog_fd, 0, "poisoned_load"))
+ goto cleanup;
+ ASSERT_HAS_SUBSTR(log, "last insn is not an exit or jmp", "poisoned_load_log");
+ }
+
+cleanup:
+ if (env.verbosity > VERBOSE_NORMAL && log[0]) {
+ printf("-------- program load log start --------\n");
+ printf("%s", log);
+ printf("-------- program load log end ----------\n");
+ }
+ close(prog_fd);
+ close(btf_fd);
+}
+
/* Check that verifier rejects BPF program containing relocation
* pointing to non-existent BTF type.
*/
@@ -120,6 +243,7 @@ static void test_bad_local_id(void)
void test_core_reloc_raw(void)
{
+ test_early_core_relo();
if (test__start_subtest("bad_local_id"))
test_bad_local_id();
}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/ld_imm64.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/ld_imm64.c
index 78f19c255f20..9ac732c142d0 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/ld_imm64.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/ld_imm64.c
@@ -50,6 +50,14 @@
.errstr = "invalid bpf_ld_imm64 insn",
.result = REJECT,
},
+{
+ "test5 ld_imm64: truncated",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | BPF_DW, 0, 0, 0, 0),
+ },
+ .errstr = "invalid bpf_ld_imm64 insn",
+ .result = REJECT,
+},
{
"test6 ld_imm64",
.insns = {
--
2.53.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-16 21:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-16 21:20 [PATCH bpf-next v5 00/10] Misc bug fixes - part 5 Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-16 21:20 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 01/10] bpf: Make post-verification instruction rewrites killable Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-16 21:20 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 02/10] bpf: Preserve packet pointer class displacement in regsafe() Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-16 21:20 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 03/10] selftests/bpf: Test packet pointer class displacement pruning Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-16 21:20 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 04/10] bpf: Apply CO-RE relocations before subprogram validation Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-16 21:20 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi [this message]
2026-09-16 21:20 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 06/10] bpf: Restrict CO-RE poisoning to relocatable instructions Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-16 21:20 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 07/10] selftests/bpf: Test CO-RE instruction poisoning restrictions Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-16 21:20 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 08/10] bpf: Assign lock identity to callback map values Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-16 21:20 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 09/10] selftests/bpf: Check callback map value lock identity Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-17 0:50 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-17 1:06 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-17 1:08 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-16 21:20 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 10/10] libbpf: Reject truncated ldimm64 CO-RE relocations Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
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=20260916212102.597335-6-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