[PATCH bpf v3 0/2] bpf: Reject negative const offsets for buffer pointers

[PATCH bpf v3 0/2] bpf: Reject negative const offsets for buffer pointers

[Sun Jian]

Reject negative effective offsets for PTR_TO_TP_BUFFER and PTR_TO_BUF
buffer accesses, and add raw tracepoint writable coverage for both
load-time rejection and the attach-time max_tp_access path.

---

Changes in v3:
- Check constant var_off against +/-BPF_MAX_VAR_OFF before computing
  the effective access range, matching the existing verifier pointer
  offset convention.
- Keep explicit rejection of negative instruction offsets and keep
  bounded negative constant var_off valid when the effective offset is
  non-negative.

Changes in v2:
- Split the kernel fix and selftests into separate patches.
- Add an attach-time raw tracepoint writable test that exercises
  max_tp_access against nbd_send_request's writable size.
- Adjust selftest formatting to use the 100 character line width.

Tested:
- ./test_progs -t verifier_raw_tp_writable
- ./test_progs -t raw_tp_writable_reject_nbd_invalid -v
- ./test_progs -t raw_tp_writable_test_run

v2: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20260707060804.93561-1-sun.jian.kdev@gmail.com/
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20260703035137.109608-1-sun.jian.kdev@gmail.com/


Sun Jian (2):
  bpf: Reject negative const offsets for buffer pointers
  selftests/bpf: Cover negative raw_tp writable buffer offsets

 kernel/bpf/verifier.c                         | 48 +++++++++++++--
 .../raw_tp_writable_reject_nbd_invalid.c      | 58 +++++++++++--------
 .../bpf/progs/verifier_raw_tp_writable.c      | 16 +++++
 3 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)


base-commit: 12091470c6b4c1c14b2de12dcbae2ada6cb6d20b
-- 
2.43.0

[PATCH bpf v3 1/2] bpf: Reject negative const offsets for buffer pointers

[Sun Jian]

The verifier rejects variable offsets for PTR_TO_TP_BUFFER and PTR_TO_BUF
accesses, but it currently accepts a constant negative offset produced by
pointer arithmetic.

For example, a raw tracepoint writable program can load ctx[0] as a
PTR_TO_TP_BUFFER, move it by -8, and then access the adjusted pointer.
The access is before the tracepoint writable buffer base and should be
rejected.

Keep rejecting negative instruction offsets explicitly. Once the register
offset is known to be constant, reject const var_off values outside the
same +/-BPF_MAX_VAR_OFF range used by other verifier pointer offset
checks before computing the effective access range.

Fixes: 9df1c28bb752 ("bpf: add writable context for raw tracepoints")
Signed-off-by: Sun Jian <sun.jian.kdev@gmail.com>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 21a365d436a5..28eb5c438212 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -5326,14 +5326,19 @@ static int check_max_stack_depth(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
 static int __check_buffer_access(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 				 const char *buf_info,
 				 const struct bpf_reg_state *reg,
-				 argno_t argno, int off, int size)
+				 argno_t argno, int off, int size,
+				 u32 *access_end)
 {
+	s64 start, var_off;
+	u64 end;
+
 	if (off < 0) {
 		verbose(env,
 			"%s invalid %s buffer access: off=%d, size=%d\n",
 			reg_arg_name(env, argno), buf_info, off, size);
 		return -EACCES;
 	}
+
 	if (!tnum_is_const(reg->var_off)) {
 		char tn_buf[48];
 
@@ -5344,6 +5349,36 @@ static int __check_buffer_access(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 		return -EACCES;
 	}
 
+	var_off = (s64)reg->var_off.value;
+	if (var_off >= BPF_MAX_VAR_OFF || var_off <= -BPF_MAX_VAR_OFF) {
+		verbose(env, "%s %s buffer offset %lld is not allowed\n",
+			reg_arg_name(env, argno), buf_info, var_off);
+		return -EACCES;
+	}
+
+	start = var_off + off;
+	if (start < 0) {
+		verbose(env,
+			"%s invalid negative %s buffer offset: off=%d, var_off=%lld\n",
+			reg_arg_name(env, argno), buf_info, off, var_off);
+		return -EACCES;
+	}
+
+	if (size < 0) {
+		verbose(env, "%s invalid %s buffer access: off=%lld, size=%d\n",
+			reg_arg_name(env, argno), buf_info, start, size);
+		return -EACCES;
+	}
+
+	end = (u64)start + (u64)size;
+	if (end > U32_MAX) {
+		verbose(env, "%s invalid %s buffer access: off=%lld, size=%d\n",
+			reg_arg_name(env, argno), buf_info, start, size);
+		return -EACCES;
+	}
+
+	*access_end = (u32)end;
+
 	return 0;
 }
 
@@ -5351,14 +5386,14 @@ static int check_tp_buffer_access(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 				  const struct bpf_reg_state *reg,
 				  argno_t argno, int off, int size)
 {
+	u32 access_end;
 	int err;
 
-	err = __check_buffer_access(env, "tracepoint", reg, argno, off, size);
+	err = __check_buffer_access(env, "tracepoint", reg, argno, off, size, &access_end);
 	if (err)
 		return err;
 
-	env->prog->aux->max_tp_access = max(reg->var_off.value + off + size,
-					    env->prog->aux->max_tp_access);
+	env->prog->aux->max_tp_access = max(access_end, env->prog->aux->max_tp_access);
 
 	return 0;
 }
@@ -5370,13 +5405,14 @@ static int check_buffer_access(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
 			       u32 *max_access)
 {
 	const char *buf_info = type_is_rdonly_mem(reg->type) ? "rdonly" : "rdwr";
+	u32 access_end;
 	int err;
 
-	err = __check_buffer_access(env, buf_info, reg, argno, off, size);
+	err = __check_buffer_access(env, buf_info, reg, argno, off, size, &access_end);
 	if (err)
 		return err;
 
-	*max_access = max(reg->var_off.value + off + size, *max_access);
+	*max_access = max(access_end, *max_access);
 
 	return 0;
 }
-- 
2.43.0

[PATCH bpf v3 2/2] selftests/bpf: Cover negative raw_tp writable buffer offsets

[Sun Jian]

Add raw tracepoint writable coverage for buffer accesses involving
negative constant pointer adjustments.

The verifier case checks that a negative effective offset is rejected.
The attach-time case adds incremental coverage beyond the existing nbd
test and the verifier rejection case: it uses a negative var_off and a
positive instruction offset whose effective offset remains non-negative.
This exercises the checked access_end accounting path and verifies that
the resulting max_tp_access is still checked against nbd_send_request's
writable size at attach time.

Signed-off-by: Sun Jian <sun.jian.kdev@gmail.com>
---
 .../raw_tp_writable_reject_nbd_invalid.c      | 58 +++++++++++--------
 .../bpf/progs/verifier_raw_tp_writable.c      | 16 +++++
 2 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/raw_tp_writable_reject_nbd_invalid.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/raw_tp_writable_reject_nbd_invalid.c
index 216b0dfac0fe..efe4cad47b28 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/raw_tp_writable_reject_nbd_invalid.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/raw_tp_writable_reject_nbd_invalid.c
@@ -4,12 +4,31 @@
 #include <linux/nbd.h>
 #include "bpf_util.h"
 
-void test_raw_tp_writable_reject_nbd_invalid(void)
+static void check_nbd_attach_reject(const char *name,
+				    const struct bpf_insn *program, size_t prog_len)
 {
-	__u32 duration = 0;
+	LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_prog_load_opts, opts);
 	char error[4096];
-	int bpf_fd = -1, tp_fd = -1;
+	int bpf_fd, tp_fd;
+
+	opts.log_level = 2;
+	opts.log_buf = error;
+	opts.log_size = sizeof(error);
+
+	bpf_fd = bpf_prog_load(BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINT_WRITABLE, NULL, "GPL v2",
+			       program, prog_len, &opts);
+	if (!ASSERT_GE(bpf_fd, 0, "prog_load"))
+		return;
+
+	tp_fd = bpf_raw_tracepoint_open("nbd_send_request", bpf_fd);
+	if (!ASSERT_LT(tp_fd, 0, name))
+		close(tp_fd);
+
+	close(bpf_fd);
+}
 
+void test_raw_tp_writable_reject_nbd_invalid(void)
+{
 	const struct bpf_insn program[] = {
 		/* r6 is our tp buffer */
 		BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1, 0),
@@ -19,25 +38,18 @@ void test_raw_tp_writable_reject_nbd_invalid(void)
 		BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
 	};
 
-	LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_prog_load_opts, opts,
-		.log_level = 2,
-		.log_buf = error,
-		.log_size = sizeof(error),
-	);
-
-	bpf_fd = bpf_prog_load(BPF_PROG_TYPE_RAW_TRACEPOINT_WRITABLE, NULL, "GPL v2",
-			       program, ARRAY_SIZE(program),
-			       &opts);
-	if (CHECK(bpf_fd < 0, "bpf_raw_tracepoint_writable load",
-		  "failed: %d errno %d\n", bpf_fd, errno))
-		return;
-
-	tp_fd = bpf_raw_tracepoint_open("nbd_send_request", bpf_fd);
-	if (CHECK(tp_fd >= 0, "bpf_raw_tracepoint_writable open",
-		  "erroneously succeeded\n"))
-		goto out_bpffd;
+	const struct bpf_insn negative_var_off_program[] = {
+		BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1, 0),
+		/* make var_off negative, but keep the effective access offset non-negative */
+		BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_6, -8),
+		/* one byte beyond the end of the nbd_request struct */
+		BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_6,
+			    sizeof(struct nbd_request) + 8),
+		BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+	};
 
-	close(tp_fd);
-out_bpffd:
-	close(bpf_fd);
+	check_nbd_attach_reject("nbd_invalid", program, ARRAY_SIZE(program));
+	check_nbd_attach_reject("nbd_invalid_negative_var_off",
+				negative_var_off_program,
+				ARRAY_SIZE(negative_var_off_program));
 }
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_raw_tp_writable.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_raw_tp_writable.c
index 14a0172e2141..4055a6443bc2 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_raw_tp_writable.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_raw_tp_writable.c
@@ -47,4 +47,20 @@ l0_%=:	/* shift the buffer pointer to a variable location */\
 	: __clobber_all);
 }
 
+SEC("raw_tracepoint.w")
+__description("raw_tracepoint_writable: reject negative const offset")
+__failure
+__msg("invalid negative tracepoint buffer offset")
+__naked void tracepoint_writable_reject_negative_const_offset(void)
+{
+	asm volatile ("					\
+	r6 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 0);				\
+	r6 += -8;					\
+	r0 = *(u64 *)(r6 + 0);				\
+	exit;						\
+"	:
+	:
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
 char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
-- 
2.43.0

Re: [PATCH bpf v3 1/2] bpf: Reject negative const offsets for buffer pointers

[bot+bpf-ci]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4110 bytes --]

> The verifier rejects variable offsets for PTR_TO_TP_BUFFER and PTR_TO_BUF
> accesses, but it currently accepts a constant negative offset produced by
> pointer arithmetic.
>
> For example, a raw tracepoint writable program can load ctx[0] as a
> PTR_TO_TP_BUFFER, move it by -8, and then access the adjusted pointer.
> The access is before the tracepoint writable buffer base and should be
> rejected.
>
> Keep rejecting negative instruction offsets explicitly. Once the register
> offset is known to be constant, reject const var_off values outside the
> same +/-BPF_MAX_VAR_OFF range used by other verifier pointer offset
> checks before computing the effective access range.
>
> Fixes: 9df1c28bb752 ("bpf: add writable context for raw tracepoints")
> Signed-off-by: Sun Jian <sun.jian.kdev@gmail.com>

The Fixes: tag points at 9df1c28bb752 ("bpf: add writable context for
raw tracepoints"), but does that commit actually have this bug?

The code it introduced rejected any non-zero offset with:

	if (!tnum_is_const(reg->var_off) || reg->var_off.value)

and a negative constant offset from pointer arithmetic was tracked in
reg->off and caught by the off < 0 check.

The constant negative offset became accepted later when
022ac0750883 ("bpf: use reg->var_off instead of reg->off for pointers")
folded static and varying offsets into reg->var_off and dropped the
|| reg->var_off.value guard, leaving:

	if (!tnum_is_const(reg->var_off))

so a constant negative offset now stored in reg->var_off.value is no
longer rejected. Should the tag instead be:

  Fixes: 022ac0750883 ("bpf: use reg->var_off instead of reg->off for pointers")

> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index 6515d4d3c003..7bcbcd43cc37 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -5326,14 +5326,19 @@ static int check_max_stack_depth(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
>  static int __check_buffer_access(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>  				 const char *buf_info,
>  				 const struct bpf_reg_state *reg,
> -				 argno_t argno, int off, int size)
> +				 argno_t argno, int off, int size,
> +				 u32 *access_end)
>  {
> +	s64 start, var_off;
> +	u64 end;
> +
>  	if (off < 0) {
>  		verbose(env,
>  			"%s invalid %s buffer access: off=%d, size=%d\n",
>  			reg_arg_name(env, argno), buf_info, off, size);
>  		return -EACCES;
>  	}
> +
>  	if (!tnum_is_const(reg->var_off)) {
>  		char tn_buf[48];
>
> @@ -5344,6 +5349,36 @@ static int __check_buffer_access(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>  		return -EACCES;
>  	}
>
> +	var_off = (s64)reg->var_off.value;
> +	if (var_off >= BPF_MAX_VAR_OFF || var_off <= -BPF_MAX_VAR_OFF) {
> +		verbose(env, "%s %s buffer offset %lld is not allowed\n",
> +			reg_arg_name(env, argno), buf_info, var_off);
> +		return -EACCES;
> +	}
> +
> +	start = var_off + off;
> +	if (start < 0) {
> +		verbose(env,
> +			"%s invalid negative %s buffer offset: off=%d, var_off=%lld\n",
> +			reg_arg_name(env, argno), buf_info, off, var_off);
> +		return -EACCES;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (size < 0) {
> +		verbose(env, "%s invalid %s buffer access: off=%lld, size=%d\n",
> +			reg_arg_name(env, argno), buf_info, start, size);
> +		return -EACCES;
> +	}
> +
> +	end = (u64)start + (u64)size;
> +	if (end > U32_MAX) {
> +		verbose(env, "%s invalid %s buffer access: off=%lld, size=%d\n",
> +			reg_arg_name(env, argno), buf_info, start, size);
> +		return -EACCES;
> +	}

Now that var_off is bounded within +/-BPF_MAX_VAR_OFF and start is
checked to be non-negative, can end > U32_MAX ever be true here?

With off capped at S16_MAX and size at 8, start + size stays well below
U32_MAX, so is the end > U32_MAX check reachable?  This is the same
point raised in review of an earlier version, and the BPF_MAX_VAR_OFF
bound was added while this overflow check was kept.

> +
> +	*access_end = (u32)end;
> +
>  	return 0;
>  }

[ ... ]

---
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/28916895865