BPF List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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)
 			 */

  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