From: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
To: bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: ast@kernel.org, andrii@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net,
jose.marchesi@oracle.com, kernel-team@fb.com,
martin.lau@kernel.org, eddyz87@gmail.com, clm@meta.com,
ihor.solodrai@linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 03/10] bpf: Support stack arguments for bpf functions
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2026 07:42:50 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <79e2d926-46de-4b83-af90-2f56f4f780d8@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <02581856b17c3d0ea793c988f905388c2855a7fcbc488df8228621462ffdd2ab@mail.kernel.org>
On 4/1/26 8:18 PM, bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org wrote:
>> diff --git a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
>> index 090aa26d1c98..a260610cd1c1 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
> [ ... ]
>
>> @@ -319,6 +324,10 @@ struct bpf_func_state {
>> * `stack`. allocated_stack is always a multiple of BPF_REG_SIZE.
>> */
>> int allocated_stack;
>> +
>> + u16 stack_arg_depth; /* Size of incoming + max outgoing stack args in bytes. */
>> + u16 incoming_stack_arg_depth; /* Size of incoming stack args in bytes. */
>> + struct bpf_stack_arg_state *stack_arg_slots;
>> };
> The new stack_arg_slots state is part of bpf_func_state and is
> properly copied in copy_stack_state() and freed in free_func_state(),
> but stacksafe() does not compare it during state pruning.
>
> stacksafe() only iterates the regular stack:
>
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c:stacksafe() {
> for (i = 0; i < old->allocated_stack; i++) {
> ...
> old->stack[spi].slot_type[...]
> ...
> }
> return true;
> }
>
> It never examines old->stack_arg_slots or cur->stack_arg_slots. This
> means func_states_equal() -> stacksafe() treats two states as
> equivalent even when they differ in their stack arg slot contents.
>
> Could this allow the verifier to incorrectly prune a path where
> outgoing stack arg slots are uninitialized? For example, if a BPF
> program has two paths to a call instruction -- one that writes the
> outgoing stack args and one that does not -- the verifier could
> explore the initialized path first, save the state at a checkpoint,
> then prune the uninitialized path as equivalent. The initialization
> check in set_callee_state():
>
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c:set_callee_state() {
> for (i = 0; i < callee_incoming_slots; i++) {
> int caller_spi = i + caller_incoming_slots;
>
> if (!is_stack_arg_slot_initialized(caller, caller_spi)) {
> verbose(env, "stack arg#%d not properly initialized\n",
> i + 1 + MAX_BPF_FUNC_REG_ARGS);
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> callee->stack_arg_slots[i] = caller->stack_arg_slots[caller_spi];
> }
> }
>
> would never run on the pruned path, potentially allowing the callee
> to receive uninitialized data.
>
> It seems like stacksafe() needs a companion loop for stack_arg_slots,
> similar to how it walks the regular stack, to maintain verifier
> soundness for this new state.
You are absolutely correct. Indeed, we should do some checking for
stack_arg_slots along side stacksafe(). I will fix it in the next
revision.
>
>
> ---
> AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
> See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md
>
> CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/23879588767
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-02 14:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-02 1:27 [PATCH bpf-next 00/10] bpf: Support stack arguments for BPF functions and kfuncs Yonghong Song
2026-04-02 1:27 ` [PATCH bpf-next 01/10] bpf: Introduce bpf register BPF_REG_STACK_ARG_BASE Yonghong Song
2026-04-02 1:27 ` [PATCH bpf-next 02/10] bpf: Reuse MAX_BPF_FUNC_ARGS for maximum number of arguments Yonghong Song
2026-04-02 1:27 ` [PATCH bpf-next 03/10] bpf: Support stack arguments for bpf functions Yonghong Song
2026-04-02 3:18 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-02 14:42 ` Yonghong Song [this message]
2026-04-02 18:55 ` Amery Hung
2026-04-02 20:45 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-02 23:38 ` Amery Hung
2026-04-03 4:05 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-02 23:38 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-04-03 4:10 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-05 21:07 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-04-06 4:29 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-06 4:51 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-04-06 6:03 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-06 15:17 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-04-06 16:19 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-06 17:24 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-04-02 1:27 ` [PATCH bpf-next 04/10] bpf: Support stack arguments for kfunc calls Yonghong Song
2026-04-02 3:18 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-02 14:45 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-02 21:02 ` Amery Hung
2026-04-02 1:27 ` [PATCH bpf-next 05/10] bpf: Reject stack arguments in non-JITed programs Yonghong Song
2026-04-02 1:27 ` [PATCH bpf-next 06/10] bpf: Enable stack argument support for x86_64 Yonghong Song
2026-04-02 1:28 ` [PATCH bpf-next 07/10] bpf,x86: Implement JIT support for stack arguments Yonghong Song
2026-04-02 22:26 ` Amery Hung
2026-04-02 23:26 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-02 23:51 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-04-03 4:13 ` Yonghong Song
2026-04-02 1:28 ` [PATCH bpf-next 08/10] selftests/bpf: Add tests for BPF function " Yonghong Song
2026-04-02 1:28 ` [PATCH bpf-next 09/10] selftests/bpf: Add negative test for oversized kfunc stack argument Yonghong Song
2026-04-02 1:28 ` [PATCH bpf-next 10/10] selftests/bpf: Add verifier tests for stack argument validation 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=79e2d926-46de-4b83-af90-2f56f4f780d8@linux.dev \
--to=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=clm@meta.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
--cc=jose.marchesi@oracle.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
/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