From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
To: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 04/11] bpf: Track R2 of register-pair returns in precision backtracking
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2026 16:37:02 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <206e8cd41f7955e6526b78df4f9bfd2307b13260.camel@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260813200230.1995389-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2116 bytes --]
On Thu, 2026-08-13 at 13:02 -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:
...
> @@ -520,7 +541,41 @@ static int backtrack_insn(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx, int subseq_idx,
> return -EFAULT;
> }
> } else if (opcode == BPF_EXIT) {
> - bool r0_precise;
> + bool from_subprog_call, r0_precise, r2_precise;
> + struct bpf_insn *call;
> + int subprog;
> +
> + /* BPF_EXIT in subprog or callback always returns
> + * right after the call instruction, so by checking
> + * whether the instruction at subseq_idx-1 is subprog
> + * call or not we can distinguish actual exit from
> + * *subprog* from exit from *callback*. In the former
> + * case, we need to propagate the precision of the
> + * return registers, if necessary. In the latter we
> + * never do that.
> + */
> + from_subprog_call = subseq_idx - 1 >= 0 &&
> + bpf_pseudo_call(&env->prog->insnsi[subseq_idx - 1]);
> +
> + /* Sample the return registers before the callback
> + * handling below clears R1-R5: unlike R0, R2 is an
> + * argument register as well, so that clear would drop
> + * a pair return on the floor.
> + */
> + r0_precise = from_subprog_call && bt_is_reg_set(bt, BPF_REG_0);
> + r2_precise = false;
> + if (from_subprog_call && bt_is_reg_set(bt, BPF_REG_2)) {
> + call = &env->prog->insnsi[subseq_idx - 1];
> + subprog = bpf_find_subprog(env, subseq_idx + call->imm);
> + if (subprog < 0)
> + return -EFAULT;
> + /* Only a callee that does return a pair defines
> + * R2. Leave the mask alone otherwise, so that
> + * the check below still catches an R2 that has
> + * no business being set.
> + */
> + r2_precise = bpf_ret_reg_pair(env, subprog);
> + }
>
> /* Backtracking to a nested function call, 'idx' is a part of
> * the inner frame 'subseq_idx' is a part of the outer frame.
I still think that the above complications are unnecessary.
The patch could be simplified by assuming that R2 always propagates
w/o loosing verification safety. E.g. as in the attachment.
[-- Attachment #2: backtracking.diff --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 3828 bytes --]
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/backtrack.c b/kernel/bpf/backtrack.c
index a2b18a9f1694..98bf59d7ae56 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/backtrack.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/backtrack.c
@@ -423,6 +423,10 @@ static int backtrack_insn(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx, int subseq_idx,
*/
verifier_bug_if(idx + 1 != subseq_idx, env,
"extra insn from subprog");
+ /* global subprog always sets R0 */
+ bt_clear_reg(bt, BPF_REG_0);
+ /* and if it does not set R2, main pass would catch it */
+ bt_clear_reg(bt, BPF_REG_2);
/* r1-r5 are invalidated after subprog call,
* so for global func call it shouldn't be set
* anymore
@@ -432,8 +436,6 @@ static int backtrack_insn(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx, int subseq_idx,
bt_reg_mask(bt));
return -EFAULT;
}
- /* global subprog always sets R0 */
- bt_clear_reg(bt, BPF_REG_0);
return 0;
} else {
/* static subprog call instruction, which
@@ -506,6 +508,8 @@ static int backtrack_insn(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx, int subseq_idx,
return -ENOTSUPP;
/* regular helper call sets R0 */
bt_clear_reg(bt, BPF_REG_0);
+ /* kfunc might aslo set R2 */
+ bt_clear_reg(bt, BPF_REG_2);
if (bt_reg_mask(bt) & BPF_REGMASK_ARGS) {
/* if backtracking was looking for registers R1-R5
* they should have been found already.
@@ -520,7 +524,25 @@ static int backtrack_insn(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx, int subseq_idx,
return -EFAULT;
}
} else if (opcode == BPF_EXIT) {
- bool r0_precise;
+ bool from_subprog_call, r0_precise, r2_precise;
+
+ /* BPF_EXIT in subprog or callback always returns
+ * right after the call instruction, so by checking
+ * whether the instruction at subseq_idx-1 is subprog
+ * call or not we can distinguish actual exit from
+ * *subprog* from exit from *callback*. In the former
+ * case, we need to propagate the precision of the
+ * return registers, if necessary. In the latter we
+ * never do that.
+ */
+ from_subprog_call = subseq_idx - 1 >= 0 &&
+ bpf_pseudo_call(&env->prog->insnsi[subseq_idx - 1]);
+
+ /* Sample the return registers before the callback
+ * handling below clears R1-R5.
+ */
+ r0_precise = from_subprog_call && bt_is_reg_set(bt, BPF_REG_0);
+ r2_precise = from_subprog_call && bt_is_reg_set(bt, BPF_REG_2);
/* Backtracking to a nested function call, 'idx' is a part of
* the inner frame 'subseq_idx' is a part of the outer frame.
@@ -533,30 +555,22 @@ static int backtrack_insn(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx, int subseq_idx,
if (subseq_idx >= 0 && bpf_calls_callback(env, subseq_idx))
for (i = BPF_REG_1; i <= BPF_REG_5; i++)
bt_clear_reg(bt, i);
+
+ bt_clear_reg(bt, BPF_REG_0);
+ bt_clear_reg(bt, BPF_REG_2);
if (bt_reg_mask(bt) & BPF_REGMASK_ARGS) {
verifier_bug(env, "backtracking exit unexpected regs %x",
bt_reg_mask(bt));
return -EFAULT;
}
- /* BPF_EXIT in subprog or callback always returns
- * right after the call instruction, so by checking
- * whether the instruction at subseq_idx-1 is subprog
- * call or not we can distinguish actual exit from
- * *subprog* from exit from *callback*. In the former
- * case, we need to propagate r0 precision, if
- * necessary. In the former we never do that.
- */
- r0_precise = subseq_idx - 1 >= 0 &&
- bpf_pseudo_call(&env->prog->insnsi[subseq_idx - 1]) &&
- bt_is_reg_set(bt, BPF_REG_0);
-
- bt_clear_reg(bt, BPF_REG_0);
if (bt_subprog_enter(bt))
return -EFAULT;
if (r0_precise)
bt_set_reg(bt, BPF_REG_0);
+ if (r2_precise)
+ bt_set_reg(bt, BPF_REG_2);
/* r6-r9 and stack slots will stay set in caller frame
* bitmasks until we return back from callee(s)
*/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-14 23:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-13 20:02 [PATCH bpf-next v5 00/11] bpf: Support aggregate return values up to 16 bytes Yonghong Song
2026-08-13 20:02 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 01/11] bpf: Factor check_global_ret_scalar_reg() out of the global return check Yonghong Song
2026-08-14 22:24 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-08-13 20:02 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 02/11] bpf: Add helpers to describe the R0:R2 return register pair Yonghong Song
2026-08-13 21:11 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-14 22:43 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-08-13 20:02 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 03/11] bpf: Wire up JIT support for 16-byte kfunc returns Yonghong Song
2026-08-14 1:20 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-13 20:02 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 04/11] bpf: Track R2 of register-pair returns in precision backtracking Yonghong Song
2026-08-13 20:49 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-14 23:37 ` Eduard Zingerman [this message]
2026-08-13 20:02 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 05/11] bpf: Account R2 of register-pair returns in live register analysis Yonghong Song
2026-08-14 1:50 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-13 20:02 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 06/11] bpf: Add verifier support for 16-byte returns in R0:R2 Yonghong Song
2026-08-13 21:11 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-14 2:26 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-14 23:53 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-08-13 20:02 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 07/11] bpf: Enable aggregate return types up to 16 bytes Yonghong Song
2026-08-13 20:02 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 08/11] bpf: Reject register-pair returns when the subprog BTF is unreliable Yonghong Song
2026-08-13 20:49 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-14 3:02 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-13 20:02 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 09/11] selftests/bpf: Add C tests for 16-byte returns in R0:R2 Yonghong Song
2026-08-13 21:11 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-15 0:47 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-08-13 20:03 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 10/11] selftests/bpf: Add inline-asm and subprog tests for R0:R2 returns Yonghong Song
2026-08-13 21:11 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-15 1:03 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-08-13 20:03 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 11/11] Documentation/bpf: Document up to 16-byte kfunc return values in R0:R2 Yonghong Song
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=206e8cd41f7955e6526b78df4f9bfd2307b13260.camel@gmail.com \
--to=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/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