From: "Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi" <memxor@gmail.com>
To: "Ning Ding" <dingning04@gmail.com>
Cc: <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, <ast@kernel.org>, <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
<john.fastabend@gmail.com>, <andrii@kernel.org>,
<eddyz87@gmail.com>, <martin.lau@linux.dev>, <song@kernel.org>,
<yonghong.song@linux.dev>, <jolsa@kernel.org>,
<emil@etsalapatis.com>, <shuah@kernel.org>,
<danieltimlee@gmail.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf: Reject writes through untrusted allocated pointers
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2026 04:35:52 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <DKEYIUKP4IPQ.M7KVG0KIIU1E@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJP4iuumoLdD62rXf=3HexiKVoKbXHJka7tm9+Cw-LaKmuvC+A@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon Aug 3, 2026 at 4:29 AM CEST, Ning Ding wrote:
> The existing PTR_UNTRUSTED branch is after the access-permission
> check. It only handles the case where we propagate the PTR_UNTRUSTED
> flag to a field pointer loaded through a BPF_READ. For a direct write
> such as res->key = 42, no pointer is loaded and that branch has no
> effect:
>
> my_child = res->child; // in that case, my_child will be marked with
> PTR_UNTRUSTED, that is what the existing PTR_UNTRUSTED do.
> res->key = 42; // The existing check doesn't handle this.
>
First, please don't top post.
Second, I don't understand your explanation. WDYM by "after the access
permission check"? It gets invoked for BPF_WRITE, so should be rejecting
res->key = 42 if 'res' is a pointer with PTR_UNTRUSTED flag set. What am I
missing?
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2026 at 4:32 PM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue Jul 28, 2026 at 5:38 AM CEST, Ning Ding wrote:
>> > A kptr loaded under an RCU read lock has MEM_ALLOC set. After
>> > bpf_rcu_read_unlock(), the verifier marks it PTR_UNTRUSTED, but
>> > check_ptr_to_btf_access() still allows writes because
>> > type_is_ptr_alloc_obj() ignores that flag.
>> >
>> > Reject writes through MEM_ALLOC pointers that are PTR_UNTRUSTED. Reads
>> > remain allowed and are converted to probe-memory accesses.
>> >
>> > Also skip the owning-reference check for these pointers, since they no
>> > longer have a live reference after leaving the RCU critical section.
>> >
>> > Add verifier tests for the rejected write and permitted read cases.
>> >
>> > Fixes: 503e4def5414 ("bpf: Replace open code with for allocated object check")
>> > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260726021304.97ED91F000E9@smtp.kernel.org/
>> > Assisted-by: Codex:gpt-5.6-sol
>> > Signed-off-by: Ning Ding <dingning04@gmail.com>
>> > ---
>>
>> Same comment for this one, split kernel and selftests into separate patches.
>>
>> > kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 6 +-
>> > .../bpf/progs/local_kptr_stash_fail.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++
>> > 2 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> > index 7aa47342dc65..24c151ad2e62 100644
>> > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> > @@ -5804,13 +5804,15 @@ static int check_ptr_to_btf_access(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>> > * program allocated objects (which always have id > 0),
>> > * but not for untrusted PTR_TO_BTF_ID | MEM_ALLOC.
>> > */
>> > - if (atype != BPF_READ && !type_is_ptr_alloc_obj(reg->type)) {
>> > + if (atype != BPF_READ &&
>> > + (!type_is_ptr_alloc_obj(reg->type) || reg->type & PTR_UNTRUSTED)) {
>> > verbose(env, "only read is supported\n");
>> > return -EACCES;
>> > }
>>
>> There is a PTR_UNTRUSTED check already earlier in this function, why is that not
>> working or not enough?
>>
>> pw-bot: cr
>>
>> >
>> > if (type_is_alloc(reg->type) && !type_is_non_owning_ref(reg->type) &&
>> > - !(reg->type & MEM_RCU) && !reg_is_referenced(env, reg)) {
>> > + !(reg->type & (MEM_RCU | PTR_UNTRUSTED)) &&
>> > + !reg_is_referenced(env, reg)) {
>> > verifier_bug(env, "allocated object must have a referenced id");
>> > return -EFAULT;
>> > }
>> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/local_kptr_stash_fail.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/local_kptr_stash_fail.c
>> > index fcf7a7567da2..d7b8cd6458bb 100644
>> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/local_kptr_stash_fail.c
>> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/local_kptr_stash_fail.c
>> > @@ -8,14 +8,22 @@
>> > #include "../bpf_experimental.h"
>> > #include "bpf_misc.h"
>> >
>> > +extern void bpf_rcu_read_lock(void) __ksym;
>> > +extern void bpf_rcu_read_unlock(void) __ksym;
>> > +
>> > struct node_data {
>> > long key;
>> > long data;
>> > struct bpf_rb_node node;
>> > };
>> >
>> > +struct plain_data {
>> > + long key;
>> > +};
>> > +
>> > struct map_value {
>> > struct node_data __kptr *node;
>> > + struct plain_data __kptr *plain;
>> > };
>> >
>> > struct node_data2 {
>> > @@ -31,6 +39,7 @@ struct node_data2 {
>> > * [35] TYPE_TAG 'kptr_ref' type_id=34
>> > */
>> > struct node_data *just_here_because_btf_bug;
>> > +struct plain_data *just_here_because_btf_bug2;
>> >
>> > struct {
>> > __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_ARRAY);
>> > @@ -82,4 +91,53 @@ long drop_rb_node_off(void *ctx)
>> > return 0;
>> > }
>> >
>> > +SEC("?tc")
>> > +__failure __msg("only read is supported")
>> > +long write_untrusted_alloc_obj(void *ctx)
>> > +{
>> > + struct map_value *mapval;
>> > + struct node_data *res;
>> > + int idx = 0;
>> > +
>> > + mapval = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&some_nodes, &idx);
>> > + if (!mapval)
>> > + return 1;
>> > +
>> > + bpf_rcu_read_lock();
>> > + res = mapval->node;
>> > + if (!res) {
>> > + bpf_rcu_read_unlock();
>> > + return 2;
>> > + }
>> > + barrier_var(res);
>> > + bpf_rcu_read_unlock();
>> > +
>> > + res->key = 42;
>> > + return 0;
>> > +}
>> > +
>> > +SEC("?tc")
>> > +__success
>> > +long read_untrusted_alloc_obj(void *ctx)
>> > +{
>> > + struct map_value *mapval;
>> > + struct plain_data *res;
>> > + int idx = 0;
>> > +
>> > + mapval = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&some_nodes, &idx);
>> > + if (!mapval)
>> > + return 1;
>> > +
>> > + bpf_rcu_read_lock();
>> > + res = mapval->plain;
>> > + if (!res) {
>> > + bpf_rcu_read_unlock();
>> > + return 2;
>> > + }
>> > + barrier_var(res);
>> > + bpf_rcu_read_unlock();
>> > +
>> > + return res->key;
>> > +}
>> > +
>> > char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-03 2:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20260726021304.97ED91F000E9@smtp.kernel.org>
2026-07-28 3:38 ` [PATCH bpf] bpf: Reject writes through untrusted allocated pointers Ning Ding
2026-08-02 23:32 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-03 2:29 ` Ning Ding
2026-08-03 2:35 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi [this message]
2026-08-03 3:21 ` Ning Ding
2026-08-03 3:26 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-03 4:06 ` Ning Ding
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=DKEYIUKP4IPQ.M7KVG0KIIU1E@gmail.com \
--to=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=danieltimlee@gmail.com \
--cc=dingning04@gmail.com \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=emil@etsalapatis.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=song@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