From: "Alexei Starovoitov" <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
To: <sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev>
Cc: <bpf@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 06/17] bpf: Add callx calls to the call graph
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2026 02:54:33 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <DLLI8DZ44BSN.35MO12IZJET8H@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260922012711.C2F581F000FF@smtp.kernel.org>
On Tue, Sep 22, 2026 at 01:27 AM sashiko-bot@kernel.org <sashiko-bot@kernel.org> wrote:
>> + if (bpf_is_callx(insn + i)) {
>> + /*
>> + * Walk the callees recorded by the main verification
>> + * pass one by one, returning to this insn after each.
>> + */
>> + if (dinfo[idx].callx_insn != i) {
>> + dinfo[idx].callx_insn = i;
>> + dinfo[idx].callx_next = 0;
>> + }
>> + sidx = next_callx_callee(env, idx, dinfo[idx].callx_next);
>
> [Severity: High]
> Could this lead to a quadratic path explosion and unbounded CPU time in the
> verifier?
>
> The callx_edges bitmap appears to aggregate all distinct callees for an
> entire caller subprogram. If I am reading this correctly,
> check_max_stack_depth_subprog iterates over this entire aggregate bitmap
> for every single callx instruction in that subprogram.
>
> If a subprogram has K callx instructions and M distinct callees, would the
> verifier evaluate K * M edges here instead of just K edges? Across nested
> subprogram calls, it seems like this combinatorial amplification could
> evaluate paths exponentially. Since this pass lacks state pruning or
> complexity bounds, could this bypass the verifier complexity limits and hang
> the kernel thread?
Not a bug. K * M is intentional. The edges are recorded per caller,
not per insn.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-22 2:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-22 1:13 [PATCH bpf-next 00/17] bpf: Indirect calls of bpf subprogs (callx) Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-22 1:13 ` [PATCH bpf-next 01/17] bpf: Fix infinite loop in check_max_stack_depth() Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-22 2:01 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-22 2:56 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-23 22:35 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-09-22 1:13 ` [PATCH bpf-next 02/17] selftests/bpf: Test recursion through a global function and a callback Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-22 1:13 ` [PATCH bpf-next 03/17] bpf: Don't fold loads from insn_array maps into constants Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-23 22:39 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-09-23 23:12 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-24 0:19 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-22 1:13 ` [PATCH bpf-next 04/17] bpf: Prepare static analysis passes for callx instruction Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-23 23:10 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-09-23 23:51 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-22 1:13 ` [PATCH bpf-next 05/17] bpf: Add callx instruction to call bpf subprogs indirectly Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-24 0:09 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-09-22 1:13 ` [PATCH bpf-next 06/17] bpf: Add callx calls to the call graph Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-22 1:27 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-22 2:54 ` Alexei Starovoitov [this message]
2026-09-22 1:13 ` [PATCH bpf-next 07/17] bpf, x86: Add JIT support for callx Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-22 1:27 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-22 2:53 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-22 1:13 ` [PATCH bpf-next 08/17] bpf, arm64: " Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-22 15:05 ` Puranjay Mohan
2026-09-22 1:13 ` [PATCH bpf-next 09/17] bpf: Discover subprogs described by func_info Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-22 1:13 ` [PATCH bpf-next 10/17] bpf: Recognize pointers to functions in read-only maps Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-22 1:31 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-22 3:01 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-24 0:46 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-24 2:12 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-22 1:13 ` [PATCH bpf-next 11/17] libbpf: Support pointers to static functions in data when linking Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-22 1:13 ` [PATCH bpf-next 12/17] libbpf: Resolve pointers to functions in read-only data Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-24 0:33 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-24 2:13 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-22 1:13 ` [PATCH bpf-next 13/17] libbpf: Treat .data.rel.ro as " Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-22 1:13 ` [PATCH bpf-next 14/17] libbpf: Support pointers to functions in read-only data in light skeleton Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-22 2:01 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-22 2:55 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-22 1:13 ` [PATCH bpf-next 15/17] selftests/bpf: Add tests for callx Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-24 0:33 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-24 2:13 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-22 1:13 ` [PATCH bpf-next 16/17] selftests/bpf: Add tests for callx through pointers in read-only data Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-22 2:01 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-24 0:33 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-22 1:13 ` [PATCH bpf-next 17/17] bpf, docs: Document callx instruction Alexei Starovoitov
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=DLLI8DZ44BSN.35MO12IZJET8H@gmail.com \
--to=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--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