BPF List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi" <memxor@gmail.com>, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 02/29] bpf: Add bpf_throw_unwind() and an arch entry hook
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2026 14:45:19 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <sashiko-outbox-209183@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7b56a21a5f2750a8325154d741318a1d451c21ed.1794399387.git.memxor@gmail.com>

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential
issues to consider:
- [High] bpf: missing __bpf_unwind_entry and notrace on non-returning
  bpf_throw()
- [Medium] bpf: missing noinline and __used/__retain/__noclone on
  bpf_throw_unwind()
It also noticed 1 related pre-existing issue this patch does not
introduce:
- [Critical] bpf: unprotected dentry mutation via static kfunc rewrite
  in specialize_kfunc() [1]
--

commit 83fef6290827fc9875d42699c4b52cdbf2a7cf72
Author: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>

bpf: Add bpf_throw_unwind() and an arch entry hook

This commit moves the stack-unwinding body of bpf_throw() into
bpf_throw_unwind() and adds a weak bpf_arch_throw_entry() hook so an
architecture can capture callee-saved registers before unwinding.

> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> index 937a0d7d68390..de31fdd18411e 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> @@ -3460,7 +3460,13 @@ static bool bpf_stack_walker(void *cookie, u64 ip, u64 sp, u64 bp)
>  	return false;
>  }
>  
> -__bpf_kfunc void bpf_throw(u64 cookie)
> +/*
> + * Unwind the stack to the exception callback of the main program. @regs holds
> + * the callee-saved registers of the throw site, or is NULL when the
> + * architecture has no native entry and the kfunc was called directly.
> + */
> +__bpf_unwind_entry
> +notrace void bpf_throw_unwind(struct bpf_throw_regs *regs, u64 cookie)
>  {
>  	struct bpf_throw_ctx ctx = {};

[Severity: Medium]
Should bpf_throw_unwind() keep the noinline, __used, __retain, and
__noclone attributes that bpf_throw() had via __bpf_kfunc?

Without noinline, the compiler can inline bpf_throw_unwind(NULL, cookie)
into its same-file caller bpf_throw(), running the unwinding body inside a
function that is neither __noscs nor notrace.  And on architectures without
an assembly caller to bpf_throw_unwind(), LTO, --gc-sections, or IPA-SRA can
drop or clone the standalone symbol so resolve_btfids fails on
BTF_ID(func, bpf_throw_unwind) in noreturn_deny.

> @@ -3481,6 +3487,11 @@ __bpf_kfunc void bpf_throw(u64 cookie)
>  	WARN(1, "A call to BPF exception callback should never return\n");
>  }
>  
> +__bpf_kfunc void bpf_throw(u64 cookie)
> +{
> +	bpf_throw_unwind(NULL, cookie);
> +}

[Severity: High]
Does bpf_throw() also need __bpf_unwind_entry and notrace?

Whenever bpf_arch_throw_entry() returns NULL, specialize_kfunc() leaves
calls to bpf_throw() targeting this C wrapper, which never returns either.
Under CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER=y (-fno-optimize-sibling-calls), bpf_throw()
cannot tail-call bpf_throw_unwind(), so on arm64 with shadow call stack
enabled its prologue still pushes a return address onto the shadow call
stack that is never popped, corrupting the return address of the BPF
program's caller.  Likewise, without notrace, function_graph tracing on
bpf_throw() pushes an entry onto current->ret_stack that is never popped on
unwind.

> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index 20b1b9ff574c7..c5b4025ee2223 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c

[ ... ]

> @@ -24793,6 +24795,11 @@ static int specialize_kfunc(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_kfunc_desc
>  	} else if (func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_arena_free_pages]) {
>  		if (env->insn_aux_data[insn_idx].non_sleepable)
>  			addr = (unsigned long)bpf_arena_free_pages_non_sleepable;
> +	} else if (func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_throw]) {
> +		void *entry = bpf_arch_throw_entry();
> +
> +		if (entry)
> +			addr = (unsigned long)entry;
>  	}
>  	desc->addr = addr;
>  	return 0;

[Severity: Critical]
This problem wasn't introduced by this patch, but can specialize_kfunc()
cause an unlocked dentry xattr mutation [1] when rewriting
KF_bpf_set_dentry_xattr and KF_bpf_remove_dentry_xattr?

kernel/bpf/verifier.c:specialize_kfunc() {
    ...
	} else if (func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_set_dentry_xattr]) {
		if (bpf_lsm_has_d_inode_locked(prog))
			addr = (unsigned long)bpf_set_dentry_xattr_locked;
	} else if (func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_remove_dentry_xattr]) {
		if (bpf_lsm_has_d_inode_locked(prog))
			addr = (unsigned long)bpf_remove_dentry_xattr_locked;
    ...
}

The rewrite checks only whether the LSM hook holds i_rwsem on the hook's
own dentry, not whether the dentry argument passed to the kfunc is that
same dentry.  If a program attached to such a hook passes an unrelated
dentry (for example, obtained via bpf_task_get_open_file()), the _locked
variant runs __vfs_setxattr() or __vfs_removexattr() on that dentry without
holding its inode's i_rwsem.

[1] https://sashiko.dev/#/bug/linux-1f1b04a2-315c-40c0-91e1-333f3c841441

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/cover.1794399387.git.memxor@gmail.com?part=2

  reply	other threads:[~2026-11-11 14:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 58+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-11-11 12:56 [PATCH bpf-next v1 00/29] Exceptions - Resource Cleanup - Redux Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-11-11 12:56 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 01/29] bpf: Record where JITs save callee-saved registers Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-11-11 12:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 02/29] bpf: Add bpf_throw_unwind() and an arch entry hook Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-11-11 14:45   ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-11-11 12:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 03/29] bpf, x86: Capture registers in a native bpf_throw() entry Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-11-11 12:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 04/29] bpf, arm64: " Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-11-11 12:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 05/29] bpf: Restore callee-saved registers from unwound frames Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-11-11 14:41   ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-11 12:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 06/29] bpf: Keep last insn's aux data in add_hidden_subprog() Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-11-11 14:38   ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-11 12:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 07/29] bpf: Add one allocator for hidden stack slots Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-11-11 14:04   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-11-11 15:15   ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-11 12:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 08/29] bpf: Add flags and release kfuncs to the dtor registry Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-11-11 13:33   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-11-11 15:36   ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-11 12:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 09/29] bpf: Register cleanup destructors for more types Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-11-11 14:04   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-11-11 15:00   ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-11 12:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 10/29] bpf: Record where JITed frames keep the BPF stack Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-11-11 12:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 11/29] bpf: Give every reference an owner frame Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-11-11 13:33   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-11-11 12:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 12/29] bpf: Release resources in hidden slots on bpf_throw() Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-11-11 14:04   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-11-11 15:30   ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-11 12:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 13/29] bpf: Track held resources in hidden stack slots Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-11-11 14:04   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-11-11 16:12   ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-11 12:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 14/29] bpf: Describe held resources at throw sites Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-11-11 14:04   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-11-11 12:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 15/29] bpf: Describe handles in registers " Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-11-11 14:04   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-11-11 16:11   ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-11 12:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 16/29] bpf: Describe locks " Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-11-11 14:04   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-11-11 16:04   ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-11 12:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 17/29] bpf: Apply hidden slot limits only when a slot is needed Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-11-11 16:31   ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-11 12:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 18/29] bpf: Allow a callee to leave resources with its caller Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-11-11 14:04   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-11-11 16:41   ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-11 12:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 19/29] bpf: Allow a callee to release its caller's resources Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-11-11 17:02   ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-11 12:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 20/29] bpf: Transfer a reference to the callee that releases it Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-11-11 14:04   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-11-11 16:57   ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-11 12:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 21/29] bpf: Support callx when a callee releases resources Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-11-11 14:04   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-11-11 17:13   ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-11 12:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 22/29] selftests/bpf: Test rejected throws that hold resources Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-11-11 12:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 23/29] selftests/bpf: Test resource cleanup on bpf_throw() Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-11-11 12:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 24/29] selftests/bpf: Test cleanup of handles on the stack Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-11-11 12:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 25/29] selftests/bpf: Test cleanup of handles in registers Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-11-11 12:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 26/29] selftests/bpf: Test callees releasing caller resources Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-11-11 12:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 27/29] selftests/bpf: Test resources a callee leaves with its caller Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-11-11 12:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 28/29] selftests/bpf: Test cleanup of locks described at sites Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-11-11 12:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 29/29] selftests/bpf: Test callee releases through callx Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-11-11 20:33 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 00/29] Exceptions - Resource Cleanup - Redux 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=sashiko-outbox-209183@kernel.org \
    --to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=memxor@gmail.com \
    --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