Re: [PATCH bpf-next v6 04/17] bpf: Prepare verifier logs for upcoming kfunc stack arguments

Yonghong Song
2026-04-21T04:06:23Z

On 4/20/26 5:03 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Sun Apr 19, 2026 at 9:33 AM PDT, Yonghong Song wrote:
>> This change prepares verifier log reporting for upcoming kfunc stack
>> argument support.
>>
>> Today verifier log code mostly assumes that an argument can be described
>> directly by a register number. That works for arguments passed in `R1`
>> to `R5`, but it does not work once kfunc arguments can also be
>> passed on the stack.
>>
>> Introduce an internal `argno` representation such that register-passed
>> arguments keep using their real register numbers, while stack-passed
>> arguments use an encoded value above a dedicated base.
>> `reg_arg_name()` converts this representation into either `R%d` or
>> `*(R11-off)` when emitting verifier logs. If a particular `argno`
>> is corresponding to a stack argument, print `*(R11-off)`. Otherwise,
>> print `R%d`. Here R11 presents the base of stack arguments.
>>
>> This keeps existing logs readable for register arguments and allows the
>> same log sites to handle future stack arguments without open-coding
>> special cases.
>>
>> Update selftests accordingly.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
>> ---
>> include/linux/bpf_verifier.h | 1 +
>> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 649 ++++++++++--------
>> .../testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c | 22 +-
>> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/cb_refs.c | 2 +-
>> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c | 2 +-
>> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/linked_list.c | 4 +-
>> .../selftests/bpf/progs/cgrp_kfunc_failure.c | 14 +-
>> .../selftests/bpf/progs/cpumask_failure.c | 10 +-
>> .../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/dynptr_fail.c | 22 +-
>> .../selftests/bpf/progs/file_reader_fail.c | 4 +-
>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/irq.c | 4 +-
>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/iters.c | 6 +-
>> .../selftests/bpf/progs/iters_state_safety.c | 14 +-
>> .../selftests/bpf/progs/iters_testmod.c | 4 +-
>> .../selftests/bpf/progs/iters_testmod_seq.c | 4 +-
>> .../selftests/bpf/progs/map_kptr_fail.c | 2 +-
>> .../selftests/bpf/progs/percpu_alloc_fail.c | 4 +-
>> .../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/rbtree_fail.c | 6 +-
>> .../bpf/progs/refcounted_kptr_fail.c | 2 +-
>> .../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/stream_fail.c | 2 +-
>> .../selftests/bpf/progs/task_kfunc_failure.c | 18 +-
>> .../selftests/bpf/progs/task_work_fail.c | 6 +-
>> .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_bpf_nf_fail.c | 8 +-
>> .../bpf/progs/test_kfunc_dynptr_param.c | 2 +-
>> .../bpf/progs/test_kfunc_param_nullable.c | 2 +-
>> .../selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bits_iter.c | 4 +-
>> .../bpf/progs/verifier_ref_tracking.c | 6 +-
>> .../selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_vfs_reject.c | 8 +-
>> .../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/wq_failures.c | 2 +-
>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c | 14 +-
>> 30 files changed, 474 insertions(+), 374 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
>> index b148f816f25b..9fbbddc40d21 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
>> @@ -913,6 +913,7 @@ struct bpf_verifier_env {
>> * e.g., in reg_type_str() to generate reg_type string
>> */
>> char tmp_str_buf[TMP_STR_BUF_LEN];
>> + char tmp_reg_arg_name_buf[32];
> the name is too long.
> Just tmp_arg_name ?

Okay.

>
>> struct bpf_insn insn_buf[INSN_BUF_SIZE];
>> struct bpf_insn epilogue_buf[INSN_BUF_SIZE];
>> struct bpf_scc_callchain callchain_buf;
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> index 3716d9688d00..6aa4dc161a56 100644
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> @@ -1751,6 +1751,55 @@ static struct bpf_verifier_state *push_stack(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>> return &elem->st;
>> }
>>
>> +/*
>> + * Unified argument number encoding for verifier log messages.
>> + * Register args (arg_idx 0-4) use their register number (R1-R5).
>> + * Stack args (arg_idx 5+) are encoded as STACK_ARGNO_BASE + arg_idx
>> + * to avoid collision with register numbers. reg_arg_name() decodes
>> + * this back to a human-readable string like "*(R11-8)" for logs.
>> + */
>> +#define STACK_ARGNO_BASE 100
>> +
>> +static bool is_stack_argno(int argno)
>> +{
>> + return argno >= STACK_ARGNO_BASE;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static u32 make_argno(u32 arg_idx)
>> +{
>> + if (arg_idx < MAX_BPF_FUNC_REG_ARGS)
>> + return BPF_REG_1 + arg_idx;
>> + return STACK_ARGNO_BASE + arg_idx;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static u32 arg_idx_from_argno(int argno)
>> +{
>> + if (is_stack_argno(argno))
>> + return argno - STACK_ARGNO_BASE;
>> + return argno - BPF_REG_1;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int next_argno(int argno)
>> +{
>> + return make_argno(arg_idx_from_argno(argno) + 1);
>> +}
> I don't like this +1, -1 dance all around. Makes the whole thing
> hard to follow.
> Keep argno starting at 1. So old regno == argno.

Sure. Will try to simplify things...

>
>> /* Check if local kptr in src arg matches kptr in dst arg */
>> - if (meta->func_id == BPF_FUNC_kptr_xchg && regno == BPF_REG_2) {
>> - if (map_kptr_match_type(env, meta->kptr_field, reg, regno))
>> + if (meta->func_id == BPF_FUNC_kptr_xchg &&
>> + !is_stack_argno(argno) && argno == BPF_REG_2) {
>> + if (map_kptr_match_type(env, meta->kptr_field, reg, argno))
> And then this argno == BPF_REG_2 will look fine.
> With argno base 0 the above looks broken.
> Also is_stack_argno() looks like defensive programming. remove it.

Okay.