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>,
	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>,
	kkd@meta.com, kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: [PATCH bpf v6 06/10] bpf: Restrict CO-RE poisoning to relocatable instructions
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2026 13:11:18 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260917111127.3780880-7-memxor@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260917111127.3780880-1-memxor@gmail.com>

CO-RE relocation records can name any instruction offset. When a
relocation cannot be resolved, bpf_core_patch_insn() currently poisons its
target before checking whether that instruction is a valid relocation
target. Malformed metadata can therefore replace jumps, calls, exits,
register-source arithmetic, or non-immediate loads instead of failing at
the relocation step.

Handle poisoning only after the instruction has passed the same class and
operand-form checks used for a resolved relocation. Route invalid forms
through the existing diagnostic and return a hard error. Keep poisoning
supported instructions, including both halves of a plain ldimm64, so an
unresolved relocation in dead code remains valid.

Extend bpf_core_poison_insn() to poison both halves of ldimm64, and return
its status directly from each validated instruction case. This avoids
routing the success path through a common label and leaves the helper free
to report errors.

The shared relocation code applies this restriction to both libbpf and
in-kernel CO-RE. Update the early in-kernel regression to expect the
relocation step to reject its invalid exit target.

Fixes: d7a252708dbc ("libbpf: Improve handling of failed CO-RE relocations")
Reported-by: Nicholas Carlini <npc@anthropic.com>
Suggested-by: Nicholas Carlini <npc@anthropic.com>
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
---
 tools/lib/bpf/relo_core.c                     | 58 ++++++++++---------
 .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/core_reloc_raw.c |  3 +-
 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/relo_core.c b/tools/lib/bpf/relo_core.c
index 8ad2715721cf..2672623a4198 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/relo_core.c
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/relo_core.c
@@ -980,23 +980,30 @@ static int bpf_core_calc_relo(const char *prog_name,
 }
 
 /*
- * Turn instruction for which CO_RE relocation failed into invalid one with
+ * Turn instruction for which CO-RE relocation failed into invalid one with
  * distinct signature.
  */
-static void bpf_core_poison_insn(const char *prog_name, int relo_idx,
-				 int insn_idx, struct bpf_insn *insn)
+static int bpf_core_poison_insn(const char *prog_name, int relo_idx,
+				struct bpf_insn *insn, int insn_idx)
 {
-	pr_debug("prog '%s': relo #%d: substituting insn #%d w/ invalid insn\n",
-		 prog_name, relo_idx, insn_idx);
-	insn->code = BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL;
-	insn->dst_reg = 0;
-	insn->src_reg = 0;
-	insn->off = 0;
-	/* if this instruction is reachable (not a dead code),
-	 * verifier will complain with the following message:
-	 * invalid func unknown#195896080
-	 */
-	insn->imm = 195896080; /* => 0xbad2310 => "bad relo" */
+	int insn_cnt = is_ldimm64_insn(insn) ? 2 : 1;
+	int i;
+
+	for (i = 0; i < insn_cnt; i++) {
+		pr_debug("prog '%s': relo #%d: substituting insn #%d w/ invalid insn\n",
+			 prog_name, relo_idx, insn_idx + i);
+		insn[i].code = BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL;
+		insn[i].dst_reg = 0;
+		insn[i].src_reg = 0;
+		insn[i].off = 0;
+		/*
+		 * If this instruction is reachable (not dead code), the verifier
+		 * will complain with "invalid func unknown#195896080".
+		 */
+		insn[i].imm = 195896080; /* => 0xbad2310 => "bad relo" */
+	}
+
+	return 0;
 }
 
 static int insn_bpf_size_to_bytes(struct bpf_insn *insn)
@@ -1047,17 +1054,6 @@ int bpf_core_patch_insn(const char *prog_name, struct bpf_insn *insn,
 
 	class = BPF_CLASS(insn->code);
 
-	if (res->poison) {
-poison:
-		/* poison second part of ldimm64 to avoid confusing error from
-		 * verifier about "unknown opcode 00"
-		 */
-		if (is_ldimm64_insn(insn))
-			bpf_core_poison_insn(prog_name, relo_idx, insn_idx + 1, insn + 1);
-		bpf_core_poison_insn(prog_name, relo_idx, insn_idx, insn);
-		return 0;
-	}
-
 	orig_val = res->orig_val;
 	new_val = res->new_val;
 
@@ -1065,7 +1061,9 @@ int bpf_core_patch_insn(const char *prog_name, struct bpf_insn *insn,
 	case BPF_ALU:
 	case BPF_ALU64:
 		if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) != BPF_K)
-			return -EINVAL;
+			goto bad_insn;
+		if (res->poison)
+			return bpf_core_poison_insn(prog_name, relo_idx, insn, insn_idx);
 		if (res->validate && insn->imm != orig_val) {
 			pr_warn("prog '%s': relo #%d: unexpected insn #%d (ALU/ALU64) value: got %d, exp %llu -> %llu\n",
 				prog_name, relo_idx,
@@ -1082,6 +1080,8 @@ int bpf_core_patch_insn(const char *prog_name, struct bpf_insn *insn,
 	case BPF_LDX:
 	case BPF_ST:
 	case BPF_STX:
+		if (res->poison)
+			return bpf_core_poison_insn(prog_name, relo_idx, insn, insn_idx);
 		if (res->validate && insn->off != orig_val) {
 			pr_warn("prog '%s': relo #%d: unexpected insn #%d (LDX/ST/STX) value: got %d, exp %llu -> %llu\n",
 				prog_name, relo_idx, insn_idx, insn->off, (unsigned long long)orig_val,
@@ -1097,7 +1097,7 @@ int bpf_core_patch_insn(const char *prog_name, struct bpf_insn *insn,
 			pr_warn("prog '%s': relo #%d: insn #%d (LDX/ST/STX) accesses field incorrectly. "
 				"Make sure you are accessing pointers, unsigned integers, or fields of matching type and size.\n",
 				prog_name, relo_idx, insn_idx);
-			goto poison;
+			return bpf_core_poison_insn(prog_name, relo_idx, insn, insn_idx);
 		}
 
 		orig_val = insn->off;
@@ -1140,6 +1140,9 @@ int bpf_core_patch_insn(const char *prog_name, struct bpf_insn *insn,
 			return -EINVAL;
 		}
 
+		if (res->poison)
+			return bpf_core_poison_insn(prog_name, relo_idx, insn, insn_idx);
+
 		imm = (__u32)insn[0].imm | ((__u64)insn[1].imm << 32);
 		if (res->validate && imm != orig_val) {
 			pr_warn("prog '%s': relo #%d: unexpected insn #%d (LDIMM64) value: got %llu, exp %llu -> %llu\n",
@@ -1157,6 +1160,7 @@ int bpf_core_patch_insn(const char *prog_name, struct bpf_insn *insn,
 		break;
 	}
 	default:
+bad_insn:
 		pr_warn("prog '%s': relo #%d: trying to relocate unrecognized insn #%d, code:0x%x, src:0x%x, dst:0x%x, off:0x%x, imm:0x%x\n",
 			prog_name, relo_idx, insn_idx, insn->code,
 			(unsigned)insn->src_reg, (unsigned)insn->dst_reg, (unsigned)insn->off, (unsigned)insn->imm);
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 ee267289fd88..10bda3ff80eb 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/core_reloc_raw.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/core_reloc_raw.c
@@ -124,7 +124,8 @@ static void test_early_core_relo(void)
 					       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");
+		ASSERT_HAS_SUBSTR(log, "trying to relocate unrecognized insn #2",
+				  "poisoned_load_log");
 	}
 
 cleanup:
-- 
2.53.0


  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-09-17 11:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-09-17 11:11 [PATCH bpf v6 00/10] Misc bug fixes - part 5 Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-17 11:11 ` [PATCH bpf v6 01/10] bpf: Make post-verification instruction rewrites killable Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-17 11:11 ` [PATCH bpf v6 02/10] bpf: Preserve packet pointer class displacement in regsafe() Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-17 11:11 ` [PATCH bpf v6 03/10] selftests/bpf: Test packet pointer class displacement pruning Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-17 11:11 ` [PATCH bpf v6 04/10] bpf: Apply CO-RE relocations before subprogram validation Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-17 12:29   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-17 11:11 ` [PATCH bpf v6 05/10] selftests/bpf: Test early in-kernel CO-RE relocation Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-17 12:29   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-17 11:11 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi [this message]
2026-09-17 12:29   ` [PATCH bpf v6 06/10] bpf: Restrict CO-RE poisoning to relocatable instructions bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-17 11:11 ` [PATCH bpf v6 07/10] selftests/bpf: Test CO-RE instruction poisoning restrictions Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-17 11:11 ` [PATCH bpf v6 08/10] bpf: Assign lock identity to callback map values Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-17 12:29   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-17 11:11 ` [PATCH bpf v6 09/10] selftests/bpf: Check callback map value lock identity Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-09-17 11:11 ` [PATCH bpf v6 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=20260917111127.3780880-7-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