From: Justin Suess <utilityemal77@gmail.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Cc: Song Liu <song@kernel.org>, Chris Mason <mason@kernel.org>,
Xu Yunxiang <xyx2021@mail.ustc.edu.cn>,
Amery Hung <ameryhung@gmail.com>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, Justin Suess <utilityemal77@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/5] selftests/bpf: Test f_inode of an RCU-protected file
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2026 17:20:38 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20261023212041.884996-3-utilityemal77@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261023212041.884996-1-utilityemal77@gmail.com>
Walking file->f_inode out of an RCU-protected mm->exe_file must yield
an RCU pointer that may be NULL rather than a trusted one. Add reject
tests where the inode is dereferenced without a NULL check and where it
is used as a trusted argument after bpf_rcu_read_unlock(), and an
accept test where it is checked and dereferenced inside the RCU
critical section.
Signed-off-by: Justin Suess <utilityemal77@gmail.com>
---
.../selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_vfs_accept.c | 24 +++++++++
.../selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_vfs_reject.c | 51 +++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 75 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_vfs_accept.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_vfs_accept.c
index 55398c04290a..34919abcff04 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_vfs_accept.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_vfs_accept.c
@@ -100,4 +100,28 @@ int BPF_PROG(inode_rename, struct inode *old_dir, struct dentry *old_dentry,
return 0;
}
+SEC("lsm.s/bprm_committed_creds")
+__success
+int BPF_PROG(trusted_field_used_in_rcu_cs, struct linux_binprm *bprm)
+{
+ struct mm_struct *mm = bprm->mm;
+ struct inode *inode;
+ struct file *file;
+ ino_t ino = 0;
+
+ if (!mm)
+ return 0;
+
+ bpf_rcu_read_lock();
+ file = mm->exe_file;
+ if (file) {
+ inode = file->f_inode;
+ if (inode)
+ ino = inode->i_ino;
+ }
+ bpf_rcu_read_unlock();
+ __sink(ino);
+ return 0;
+}
+
char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_vfs_reject.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_vfs_reject.c
index b5f456d57669..067b4f979902 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_vfs_reject.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_vfs_reject.c
@@ -173,4 +173,55 @@ int BPF_PROG(inode_rename, struct inode *old_dir, struct dentry *old_dentry,
return -EACCES;
return 0;
}
+
+__weak int subprog_trusted_inode(struct inode *inode __arg_trusted)
+{
+ return inode->i_ino;
+}
+
+SEC("lsm.s/bprm_committed_creds")
+__failure __msg("invalid mem access 'rcu_ptr_or_null_'")
+int BPF_PROG(trusted_field_of_rcu_parent_unchecked, struct linux_binprm *bprm)
+{
+ struct mm_struct *mm = bprm->mm;
+ struct file *file;
+ ino_t ino = 0;
+
+ if (!mm)
+ return 0;
+
+ bpf_rcu_read_lock();
+ file = mm->exe_file;
+ /* The file may have been recycled under RCU: f_inode can be NULL. */
+ if (file)
+ ino = file->f_inode->i_ino;
+ bpf_rcu_read_unlock();
+ __sink(ino);
+ return 0;
+}
+
+SEC("lsm.s/bprm_committed_creds")
+__failure __msg("R1 type=untrusted_ptr_ expected=ptr_, trusted_ptr_, rcu_ptr_")
+int BPF_PROG(trusted_field_escapes_rcu_cs, struct linux_binprm *bprm)
+{
+ struct mm_struct *mm = bprm->mm;
+ struct inode *inode;
+ struct file *file;
+
+ if (!mm)
+ return 0;
+
+ bpf_rcu_read_lock();
+ file = mm->exe_file;
+ if (!file) {
+ bpf_rcu_read_unlock();
+ return 0;
+ }
+ inode = file->f_inode;
+ bpf_rcu_read_unlock();
+
+ /* inode is an RCU pointer like file and is untrusted after unlock. */
+ subprog_trusted_inode(inode);
+ return 0;
+}
char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
--
2.55.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-23 21:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-23 21:20 [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/5] bpf: bound trusted fields and derived returns to their parent's lifetime Justin Suess
2026-10-23 21:20 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/5] bpf: Don't apply the trusted field lists to an RCU-protected parent Justin Suess
2026-10-23 21:58 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-23 21:20 ` Justin Suess [this message]
2026-10-23 21:20 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 3/5] bpf: Add a __derives_ret kfunc argument annotation Justin Suess
2026-10-23 21:52 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-23 21:20 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 4/5] bpf: Bind the inode bpf_real_data_inode() returns to the file Justin Suess
2026-10-23 21:20 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 5/5] selftests/bpf: Test __derives_ret return invalidation on argument release Justin Suess
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=20261023212041.884996-3-utilityemal77@gmail.com \
--to=utilityemal77@gmail.com \
--cc=ameryhung@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=mason@kernel.org \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=xyx2021@mail.ustc.edu.cn \
/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