From: "Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi" <memxor@gmail.com>
To: <bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org>, <alexis.lothore@bootlin.com>,
<ast@kernel.org>, <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
<john.fastabend@gmail.com>, <andrii@kernel.org>,
<martin.lau@linux.dev>, <eddyz87@gmail.com>, <song@kernel.org>,
<yonghong.song@linux.dev>, <jolsa@kernel.org>, <tglx@kernel.org>,
<bp@alien8.de>, <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, <x86@kernel.org>,
<hpa@zytor.com>, <shuah@kernel.org>, <mingo@redhat.com>,
<andreyknvl@gmail.com>, <emil@etsalapatis.com>,
<ihor.solodrai@linux.dev>, <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
Cc: <ebpf@linuxfoundation.org>, <bastien.curutchet@bootlin.com>,
<thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>, <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
<martin.lau@kernel.org>, <clm@meta.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v7 1/9] bpf: mark instructions accessing program stack
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2026 00:33:44 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <DKWOIW8NUFZA.1QPBXZJY5YYOL@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f6a88fe55d543f5fe2a6d9e856acb4cf1b87b8210de58459df1272c8a456d926@mail.kernel.org>
On Sat Aug 22, 2026 at 1:24 AM CEST, bot+bpf-ci wrote:
>> diff --git a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
>> index 004b06785521..412a13a664fa 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
>> @@ -725,6 +725,8 @@ struct bpf_insn_aux_data {
>> u16 const_reg_map_mask;
>> u16 const_reg_subprog_mask;
>> u32 const_reg_vals[10];
>> + /* instruction can access non-stack memory */
>> + bool non_stack_access;
>> };
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> index e036ae20bf6b..040af75d9550 100644
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> @@ -3272,6 +3272,11 @@ static void mark_indirect_target(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx)
>> env->insn_aux_data[idx].indirect_target = true;
>> }
>>
>> +static void mark_non_stack_access(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int idx)
>> +{
>> + env->insn_aux_data[idx].non_stack_access = true;
>> +}
>> +
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> @@ -6654,6 +6659,10 @@ static int check_mem_access(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, int insn_idx, struct b
>> clear_scalar_id(®s[value_regno]);
>> }
>> }
>> +
>> + if (!err && reg->type != PTR_TO_STACK)
>> + mark_non_stack_access(env, insn_idx);
>> +
>> return err;
>> }
>
> Does this test read the correct register type? For a load instruction where
> dst_reg == src_reg (e.g., rX = *(u64 *)(rX + off)), check_mem_access()
> receives reg = ®s[src_reg] and value_regno = dst_reg, so reg points to
> the same slot that gets overwritten by the load.
>
> When the pointer is PTR_TO_STACK, check_stack_read() runs:
>
> check_stack_read_fixed_off() {
> state->regs[dst_regno] = *reg; /* or mark_reg_stack_read() */
> }
>
> By the time execution reaches the new test, reg->type is the loaded value's
> type (typically SCALAR_VALUE), not PTR_TO_STACK. The condition evaluates to
> true and marks a stack-only access as non-stack.
>
> Both check_load_mem() and check_store_reg() snapshot the pointer type before
> calling check_mem_access():
>
> /* verifier.c check_load_mem */
> src_reg_type = regs[insn->src_reg].type;
> err = check_mem_access(env, env->insn_idx, ...);
>
> /* verifier.c check_store_reg */
> dst_reg_type = regs[insn->dst_reg].type;
> err = check_mem_access(env, env->insn_idx, ...);
>
> Could check_mem_access() snapshot reg->type at entry and test that snapshot
> instead?
This one also looks like a real bug, we should probably save the type before the
call as suggested and done elsewhere.
>
>
> ---
> 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/32534828209
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-23 22:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-21 22:39 [PATCH bpf-next v7 0/9] bpf: add support for KASAN checks in JITed programs Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation)
2026-08-21 22:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next v7 1/9] bpf: mark instructions accessing program stack Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation)
2026-08-21 22:54 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-21 23:24 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-23 22:33 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi [this message]
2026-08-21 22:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next v7 2/9] bpf: add BPF_JIT_KASAN for KASAN instrumentation of JITed programs Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation)
2026-08-21 22:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next v7 3/9] bpf, x86: refactor BPF_ST management in do_jit Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation)
2026-08-21 22:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next v7 4/9] bpf, x86: emit KASAN checks in x86 JITed programs Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation)
2026-08-21 23:24 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-21 23:33 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-23 22:30 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-25 0:12 ` Ihor Solodrai
2026-08-25 0:26 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-25 7:03 ` Alexis Lothoré
2026-08-21 22:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next v7 5/9] bpf, x86: enable KASAN for JITed programs on x86 Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation)
2026-08-21 22:55 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-21 22:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next v7 6/9] selftests/bpf: make cmdline_contains stricter Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation)
2026-08-21 22:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next v7 7/9] selftests/bpf: add helpers for KASAN in JIT testing Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation)
2026-08-21 22:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next v7 8/9] selftests/bpf: move bpf_jit_harden helper into testing_helpers Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation)
2026-08-21 23:13 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-21 22:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next v7 9/9] selftests/bpf: add tests to validate KASAN on JIT programs Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation)
2026-08-21 23:36 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-23 22:40 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-23 22:53 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-23 22:53 ` [PATCH bpf-next v7 0/9] bpf: add support for KASAN checks in JITed programs Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
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=DKWOIW8NUFZA.1QPBXZJY5YYOL@gmail.com \
--to=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=alexis.lothore@bootlin.com \
--cc=andreyknvl@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bastien.curutchet@bootlin.com \
--cc=bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=clm@meta.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=ebpf@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=emil@etsalapatis.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=laoar.shao@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@kernel.org \
--cc=thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--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