From: Mykyta Yatsenko <mykyta.yatsenko5@gmail.com>
To: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Dan Schatzberg <dschatzberg@meta.com>,
Emil Tsalapatis <emil@etsalapatis.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
kkd@meta.com, kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/3] bpf: Support variable offsets for syscall PTR_TO_CTX
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2026 14:06:09 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87cy11kzam.fsf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260318103526.2590079-2-memxor@gmail.com>
Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com> writes:
> Allow accessing PTR_TO_CTX with variable offsets in syscall programs.
> Fixed offsets are already enabled for all program types that do not
> convert their ctx accesses, since the changes we made in the commit
> de6c7d99f898 ("bpf: Relax fixed offset check for PTR_TO_CTX"). Note
> that we also lift the restriction on passing syscall context into
> helpers, which was not permitted before, and passing modified syscall
> context into kfuncs.
>
> The structure of check_mem_access can be mostly shared and preserved,
> but we must use check_mem_region_access to correctly verify access with
> variable offsets.
>
> The check made in check_helper_mem_access is hardened to only allow
> PTR_TO_CTX for syscall programs to be passed in as helper memory. This
> was the original intention of the existing code anyway, and it makes
> little sense for other program types' context to be utilized as a memory
> buffer. In case a convincing example presents itself in the future, this
> check can be relaxed further.
>
> We also no longer use the last-byte access to simulate helper memory
> access, but instead go through check_mem_region_access. Since this no
> longer updates our max_ctx_offset, we must do so manually, to keep track
> of the maximum offset at which the program ctx may be accessed.
>
> Take care to ensure that when arg_type is ARG_PTR_TO_CTX, we do not
> relax any fixed or variable offset constraints around PTR_TO_CTX even in
> syscall programs, and require them to be passed unmodified. There are
> several reasons why this is necessary. First, if we pass a modified ctx,
> then the global subprog's accesses will not update the max_ctx_offset to
> its true maximum offset, and can lead to out of bounds accesses. Second,
> tail called program (or extension program replacing global subprog) where
> their max_ctx_offset exceeds the program they are being called from can
> also cause issues. For the latter, unmodified PTR_TO_CTX is the first
> requirement for the fix, the second is ensuring max_ctx_offset >= the
> program they are being called from, which has to be a separate change
> not made in this commit.
>
> All in all, we can hint using arg_type when we expect ARG_PTR_TO_CTX and
> make our relaxation around offsets conditional on it.
>
> Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> Cc: Dan Schatzberg <dschatzberg@meta.com>
> Reviewed-by: Emil Tsalapatis <emil@etsalapatis.com>
> Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
> ---
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 67 ++++++++++++-------
> .../bpf/progs/verifier_global_subprogs.c | 1 -
> 2 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index 01c18f4268de..14bf64e0c600 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -7843,6 +7843,7 @@ static int check_mem_access(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx, u32 regn
> * Program types that don't rewrite ctx accesses can safely
> * dereference ctx pointers with fixed offsets.
> */
> + bool var_off_ok = resolve_prog_type(env->prog) == BPF_PROG_TYPE_SYSCALL;
> bool fixed_off_ok = !env->ops->convert_ctx_access;
> struct bpf_retval_range range;
> struct bpf_insn_access_aux info = {
> @@ -7857,16 +7858,26 @@ static int check_mem_access(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx, u32 regn
> return -EACCES;
> }
>
> - err = __check_ptr_off_reg(env, reg, regno, fixed_off_ok);
> - if (err < 0)
> - return err;
> -
> /*
> * Fold the register's constant offset into the insn offset so
> - * that is_valid_access() sees the true effective offset.
> + * that is_valid_access() sees the true effective offset. If the
> + * register's offset is allowed to be variable, then the maximum
> + * possible offset is simulated (which is equal to var_off.value
> + * when var_off is constant).
> */
> - if (fixed_off_ok)
> - off += reg->var_off.value;
> + if (var_off_ok) {
> + err = check_mem_region_access(env, regno, off, size, U16_MAX, false);
> + if (err)
> + return err;
> + off += reg->umax_value;
> + } else {
> + err = __check_ptr_off_reg(env, reg, regno, fixed_off_ok);
> + if (err < 0)
> + return err;
> + if (fixed_off_ok)
> + off += reg->var_off.value;
> + }
nit: this code looks a bit complex, I wonder if it makes sense to encode
the context offset mode into an enum:
enum bpf_ctx_allowed_off {
CTX_OFF_VAR,
CTX_OFF_FIXED,
CTX_OFF_NONE
};
we can factor out a helper that returns allowed offset mode:
```
enum bpf_ctx_allowed_off get_context_allowed_offset(env)
{
if (resolve_prog_type(env->prog) == BPF_PROG_TYPE_SYSCALL)
return CTX_OFF_VAR;
else if (!env->ops->convert_ctx_access)
return CTX_OFF_FIXED;
else
return CTX_OFF_NONE;
}
```
The enum makes the three-way exclusive modes explicit, eliminates the
implicit priority and more self-documenting.
The enum can also be used below.
> +
> err = check_ctx_access(env, insn_idx, off, size, t, &info);
> if (err)
> verbose_linfo(env, insn_idx, "; ");
> @@ -8442,22 +8453,16 @@ static int check_helper_mem_access(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int regno,
> return check_ptr_to_btf_access(env, regs, regno, 0,
> access_size, BPF_READ, -1);
> case PTR_TO_CTX:
> - /* in case the function doesn't know how to access the context,
> - * (because we are in a program of type SYSCALL for example), we
> - * can not statically check its size.
> - * Dynamically check it now.
> - */
> - if (!env->ops->convert_ctx_access) {
Why did you remove this block here, it should correspond to fixed
offset, and is not processed in the resolve_prog_type(env->prog) ==
BPF_PROG_TYPE_SYSCALL) branch.
> - int offset = access_size - 1;
> -
> - /* Allow zero-byte read from PTR_TO_CTX */
> - if (access_size == 0)
> - return zero_size_allowed ? 0 : -EACCES;
> -
> - return check_mem_access(env, env->insn_idx, regno, offset, BPF_B,
> - access_type, -1, false, false);
> + /* Only permit reading or writing syscall context using helper calls. */
> + if (resolve_prog_type(env->prog) == BPF_PROG_TYPE_SYSCALL) {
If we introduce bpf_ctx_allowed_off enum, this check could be modified
to if (get_context_allowed_offset() == CTX_OFF_VAR) here and also in
other place as well, does it capture the logic better?
I'm not 100% sure if these use cases are worth adding a separate enum,
though, let me know what you think.
> + int err = check_mem_region_access(env, regno, 0, access_size, U16_MAX,
> + zero_size_allowed);
> + if (err)
> + return err;
> + if (env->prog->aux->max_ctx_offset < reg->umax_value + access_size)
> + env->prog->aux->max_ctx_offset = reg->umax_value + access_size;
> + return 0;
> }
> -
> fallthrough;
> default: /* scalar_value or invalid ptr */
> /* Allow zero-byte read from NULL, regardless of pointer type */
> @@ -9401,6 +9406,7 @@ static const struct bpf_reg_types mem_types = {
> PTR_TO_MEM | MEM_RINGBUF,
> PTR_TO_BUF,
> PTR_TO_BTF_ID | PTR_TRUSTED,
> + PTR_TO_CTX,
> },
> };
>
> @@ -9710,6 +9716,17 @@ static int check_func_arg_reg_off(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
> * still need to do checks instead of returning.
> */
> return __check_ptr_off_reg(env, reg, regno, true);
> + case PTR_TO_CTX:
> + /*
> + * Allow fixed and variable offsets for syscall context, but
> + * only when the argument is passed as memory, not ctx,
> + * otherwise we may get modified ctx in tail called programs and
> + * global subprogs (that may act as extension prog hooks).
> + */
> + if (arg_type != ARG_PTR_TO_CTX &&
> + resolve_prog_type(env->prog) == BPF_PROG_TYPE_SYSCALL)
This looks like another instance where we check for prog_type==syscall,
but actually mean: is variable offset into ctx is allowed.
> + return 0;
> + fallthrough;
> default:
> return __check_ptr_off_reg(env, reg, regno, false);
> }
> @@ -10757,7 +10774,7 @@ static int btf_check_func_arg_match(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int subprog,
> * invalid memory access.
> */
> } else if (arg->arg_type == ARG_PTR_TO_CTX) {
> - ret = check_func_arg_reg_off(env, reg, regno, ARG_DONTCARE);
> + ret = check_func_arg_reg_off(env, reg, regno, ARG_PTR_TO_CTX);
> if (ret < 0)
> return ret;
> /* If function expects ctx type in BTF check that caller
> @@ -13565,7 +13582,6 @@ static int check_kfunc_args(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_kfunc_call_
> }
> }
> fallthrough;
> - case KF_ARG_PTR_TO_CTX:
> case KF_ARG_PTR_TO_DYNPTR:
> case KF_ARG_PTR_TO_ITER:
> case KF_ARG_PTR_TO_LIST_HEAD:
> @@ -13583,6 +13599,9 @@ static int check_kfunc_args(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_kfunc_call_
> case KF_ARG_PTR_TO_IRQ_FLAG:
> case KF_ARG_PTR_TO_RES_SPIN_LOCK:
> break;
> + case KF_ARG_PTR_TO_CTX:
> + arg_type = ARG_PTR_TO_CTX;
> + break;
> default:
> verifier_bug(env, "unknown kfunc arg type %d", kf_arg_type);
> return -EFAULT;
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_global_subprogs.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_global_subprogs.c
> index f02012a2fbaa..2250fc31574d 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_global_subprogs.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_global_subprogs.c
> @@ -134,7 +134,6 @@ __noinline __weak int subprog_user_anon_mem(user_struct_t *t)
>
> SEC("?tracepoint")
> __failure __log_level(2)
> -__msg("invalid bpf_context access")
> __msg("Caller passes invalid args into func#1 ('subprog_user_anon_mem')")
> int anon_user_mem_invalid(void *ctx)
> {
> --
> 2.52.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-18 14:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-18 10:35 [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/3] Allow variable offsets for syscall PTR_TO_CTX Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-03-18 10:35 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/3] bpf: Support " Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-03-18 14:06 ` Mykyta Yatsenko [this message]
2026-03-18 21:59 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-03-18 21:13 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-03-18 21:57 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-03-18 22:37 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-03-18 23:33 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-03-18 23:43 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-03-18 10:35 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/3] selftests/bpf: Add syscall ctx variable offset tests Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-03-18 14:45 ` Mykyta Yatsenko
2026-03-18 21:41 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-03-18 21:58 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-03-18 22:01 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-03-18 10:35 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 3/3] selftests/bpf: Test modified syscall ctx for ARG_PTR_TO_CTX Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-03-18 15:13 ` Mykyta Yatsenko
2026-03-18 11:45 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/3] Allow variable offsets for syscall PTR_TO_CTX Puranjay Mohan
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=87cy11kzam.fsf@gmail.com \
--to=mykyta.yatsenko5@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=dschatzberg@meta.com \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=emil@etsalapatis.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=kkd@meta.com \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=tj@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