BPF List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v6 05/10] bpf: Account R2 of register-pair returns in live register analysis
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2026 08:40:11 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <83cf5ba4-810d-44e5-a298-7b81c9dcced8@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260817044342.66D1E1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org>



On 8/16/26 9:43 PM, sashiko-bot@kernel.org wrote:
> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 3 potential issue(s) to consider:
> - [Critical] When a BPF program with 16-byte returns falls back to the interpreter (e.g., if JIT is disabled), the interpreter silently discards the upper 8 bytes (R2) of the return value, causing runtime data corruption.
> - [High] The verifier fails to propagate or initialize BPF_REG_2 back to the caller for subprograms and kfuncs returning 16-byte values, rendering the feature unusable.
> - [High] The verifier fails to validate the safety of BPF_REG_2 at the exit of global subprograms returning 16-byte values, allowing potential pointer leaks or returning uninitialized memory.
> --
>
> --- Patch [5]: [PATCH bpf-next v6 05/10] bpf: Account R2 of register-pair returns in live register analysis ---
> commit 1e84baf022beac38fd11fa1a392f1c5622154586
> Author: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
>
> bpf: Account R2 of register-pair returns in live register analysis
>
> This commit updates the live register analysis to account for subprograms
> returning a 16-byte register pair. It modifies compute_insn_live_regs()
> to mark BPF_REG_2 as read during BPF_EXIT when a subprogram returns a
> register pair.
>
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/liveness.c b/kernel/bpf/liveness.c
>> index 74fc4b3f80d6e..71f998c6eb888 100644
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/liveness.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/liveness.c
> [ ... ]
>> @@ -2191,7 +2193,7 @@ static void compute_insn_live_regs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>>   			break;
>>   		case BPF_EXIT:
>>   			def = 0;
>> -			use = r0;
>> +			use = ret_reg_pair ? (r0 | r2) : r0;
>>   			break;
> [Severity: High]
> How does the verifier propagate BPF_REG_2 back to the caller for subprograms
> and kfuncs returning 16-byte values?
>
> In kernel/bpf/verifier.c:prepare_func_exit(), only BPF_REG_0 is copied from
> the callee's state to the caller's state:
>
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c:prepare_func_exit() {
> 	...
> 	/* return to the caller whatever r0 had in the callee */
> 	bpf_diag_mod_begin(env, &caller->regs[BPF_REG_0], r0, BPF_DIAG_MOD_WRITE);
> 	caller->regs[BPF_REG_0] = *r0;
> 	bpf_diag_mod_end(env);
> 	...
> }
>
> Similarly, when returning from a non-void global subprogram or a kfunc, only
> BPF_REG_0 is initialized as a scalar. For instance, in check_func_call():
>
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c:check_func_call() {
> 	...
> 	/* All non-void global functions return a 64-bit SCALAR_VALUE. */
> 	if (!returns_void) {
> 		mark_reg_unknown(env, caller->regs, BPF_REG_0);
> 		bpf_diag_mod_end(env);
> 	}
> 	...
> }
>
> And in check_kfunc_call():
>
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c:check_kfunc_call() {
> 	...
> 	if (btf_type_is_scalar(t)) {
> 		mark_reg_unknown(env, regs, BPF_REG_0);
> 	...
> }
>
> Since clear_caller_saved_regs() marks R1-R5 as NOT_INIT prior to the call,
> would this leave the caller's BPF_REG_2 uninitialized, causing the verifier
> to reject legitimate reads of the upper 8 bytes of the return value?

This should be okay. The BPF_REG_2 is introduced in later patch
   bpf: Add verifier support for 16-byte returns in R0:R2

>
> [Severity: High]
> Is the safety of BPF_REG_2 validated at the exit of global subprograms
> returning 16-byte values?
>
> In kernel/bpf/verifier.c:check_global_subprog_return_code(), the return code
> validation is only performed for BPF_REG_0:
>
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c:check_global_subprog_return_code() {
> 	...
> 	return check_global_ret_scalar_reg(env, BPF_REG_0);
> }
>
> Could this omit BPF_REG_2 for register-pair returns, potentially allowing a
> global subprogram to return an unreferenced pointer, a map value pointer, or
> uninitialized memory without being caught by the verifier?

The same as above. The BPF_REG_2 is introduced in later patch
   bpf: Add verifier support for 16-byte returns in R0:R2


>
> [Severity: Critical]
> What happens if a BPF program with 16-byte returns falls back to the
> interpreter?
>
> If JIT is not requested, bpf_compute_subprog_ret_regs() exits early without
> setting env->prog->jit_required = 1:
>
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c:bpf_compute_subprog_ret_regs() {
> 	...
> 	if (!env->prog->jit_requested || bpf_prog_is_offloaded(env->prog->aux))
> 		return 0;
> 	...
> }
>
> This permits the program to fall back to the interpreter. However, the
> interpreter handles subprogram calls via JMP_CALL_ARGS, which only propagates
> BPF_R0:
>
> kernel/bpf/core.c:___bpf_prog_run() {
> 	...
> 	JMP_CALL_ARGS:
> 		BPF_R0 = interpreters_args[insn->off](BPF_R1, BPF_R2, BPF_R3,
> 						      BPF_R4, BPF_R5,
> 						      insn + insn->imm + 1);
> 		CONT;
> 	...
> }
>
> Since the PROG_NAME_ARGS macro generates functions that return a single u64,
> does the interpreter silently discard the upper 8 bytes (R2) of the return
> value, causing data corruption at runtime?
>
>>   		case BPF_CALL:
>>   			def = ALL_CALLER_SAVED_REGS;

In such case (jit not requested), verifier will fail. For example,
suppose the subprog will return R0:R2, but in interpreter mode, only
R0 is returned. R2 is not initialized. In caller, when trying to
return R2, but R2 is not initialized, so verifier will fail.


  reply	other threads:[~2026-08-17 15:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-08-17  4:21 [PATCH bpf-next v6 00/10] bpf: Support aggregate return values up to 16 bytes Yonghong Song
2026-08-17  4:21 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 01/10] bpf: Factor check_global_ret_scalar_reg() out of the global return check Yonghong Song
2026-08-17  4:21 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 02/10] bpf: Add helpers to describe the R0:R2 return register pair Yonghong Song
2026-08-17  5:17   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-17 15:20     ` Yonghong Song
2026-08-17  4:21 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 03/10] bpf: Wire up JIT support for 16-byte kfunc returns Yonghong Song
2026-08-17  4:37   ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-17 15:25     ` Yonghong Song
2026-08-17  4:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 04/10] bpf: Handle R2 as a return register in precision backtracking Yonghong Song
2026-08-17  5:17   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-17 15:27     ` Yonghong Song
2026-08-17  4:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 05/10] bpf: Account R2 of register-pair returns in live register analysis Yonghong Song
2026-08-17  4:43   ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-17 15:40     ` Yonghong Song [this message]
2026-08-17  4:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 06/10] bpf: Add verifier support for 16-byte returns in R0:R2 Yonghong Song
2026-08-17  4:42   ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-17 15:46     ` Yonghong Song
2026-08-17  5:17   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-17 16:02     ` Yonghong Song
2026-08-17  4:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 07/10] bpf: Enable aggregate return types up to 16 bytes Yonghong Song
2026-08-17  4:42   ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-17 16:12     ` Yonghong Song
2026-08-17  4:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 08/10] selftests/bpf: Add C tests for 16-byte returns in R0:R2 Yonghong Song
2026-08-17  4:45   ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-17 16:32     ` Yonghong Song
2026-08-17  4:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 09/10] selftests/bpf: Add inline-asm and subprog tests for R0:R2 returns Yonghong Song
2026-08-17  4:42   ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-17 16:53     ` Yonghong Song
2026-08-17  5:17   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-17 17:12     ` Yonghong Song
2026-08-17  4:22 ` [PATCH bpf-next v6 10/10] 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=83cf5ba4-810d-44e5-a298-7b81c9dcced8@linux.dev \
    --to=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.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