From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6030A509F06; Wed, 30 Sep 2026 18:20:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790792447; cv=none; b=TO5VlJlPWwTSZCDzK8axlpClm5D0aRfUsEwKxPOXhPLJjJZtiwp4V9vtskV/Dx1efCtxViqJSMGaas7BbxVpypZE17g7GrYhe2K7LIEsiHrYBSeKMsDhglqfM+HDOb3yHCpTiMXuOtCVrwUu986cD3AkKUEDap8HqcdKuBpFc+4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790792447; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Pno/NWanxGr/tBSQSbXj6SuEYFLZ37HfcPLbA5OHQD4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=J1EAsRpWf6+Tdnq2Q4mpsTmdedm24k6vFlENwLrEf+5YJqUzV6LADV8iX0dVLs4W+1QdUyPsm8FTkQAowb3tcN1Mj9dvm5VZAtKqMZZpsqCt7/4rPuDAuEcUHzc0Upcz8GojnJwysKeJlGeAIm2kttCCc9DGVum8Tb2SrKS5x2I= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b=Iz6vYNuH; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b="Iz6vYNuH" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B94E51F000FF; Wed, 30 Sep 2026 18:20:45 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1790792446; bh=vlqV5Xxb/ss2o+aV2sTT48DRcUQmnP2TzcbJF8T1gVY=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=Iz6vYNuHjfaUKFto5LSWdY2dG32xcuVrrBsN41I7nDD8tAlhItL+LiRJKE0b8tl8d 2Qd3kTIpKilCdIxngK7a3RabI4tzjGjAeAF/o7Jqv/hZW3c8CveOzuu/la882Wolw+ L+R/ARp1lykelsEnJyn8OulW4M2QILyiWSzI+NSA= From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: stable@vger.kernel.org Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , patches@lists.linux.dev, Nicholas Carlini , Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi , Eduard Zingerman , Sasha Levin Subject: [PATCH 5.15 613/752] bpf: Restrict CO-RE poisoning to relocatable instructions Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2026 17:28:03 +0200 Message-ID: <20260930152411.548359893@linuxfoundation.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.55.0 In-Reply-To: <20260930152358.131179731@linuxfoundation.org> References: <20260930152358.131179731@linuxfoundation.org> User-Agent: quilt/0.69 X-stable: review X-Patchwork-Hint: ignore Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: patches@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 5.15-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi [ Upstream commit 394ae398337c5f87e567f6cd63b937fc2b2f6ddc ] CO-RE relocation records can name any instruction offset. When a relocation cannot be resolved, bpf_core_patch_insn() currently poisons its target before checking whether that instruction is a valid relocation target. Malformed metadata can therefore replace jumps, calls, exits, register-source arithmetic, or non-immediate loads instead of failing at the relocation step. Handle poisoning only after the instruction has passed the same class and operand-form checks used for a resolved relocation. Route invalid forms through the existing diagnostic and return a hard error. Keep poisoning supported instructions, including both halves of a plain ldimm64, so an unresolved relocation in dead code remains valid. Extend bpf_core_poison_insn() to poison both halves of ldimm64, and return its status directly from each validated instruction case. This avoids routing the success path through a common label and leaves the helper free to report errors. The shared relocation code applies this restriction to both libbpf and in-kernel CO-RE. Fixes: d7a252708dbc ("libbpf: Improve handling of failed CO-RE relocations") Reported-by: Nicholas Carlini Suggested-by: Nicholas Carlini Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260917233222.2542500-7-memxor@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin --- tools/lib/bpf/relo_core.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++------------------ 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/relo_core.c b/tools/lib/bpf/relo_core.c index 871a2ea8674ae..328c3e5cd8485 100644 --- a/tools/lib/bpf/relo_core.c +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/relo_core.c @@ -860,23 +860,30 @@ static int bpf_core_calc_relo(const char *prog_name, } /* - * Turn instruction for which CO_RE relocation failed into invalid one with + * Turn instruction for which CO-RE relocation failed into invalid one with * distinct signature. */ -static void bpf_core_poison_insn(const char *prog_name, int relo_idx, - int insn_idx, struct bpf_insn *insn) +static int bpf_core_poison_insn(const char *prog_name, int relo_idx, + struct bpf_insn *insn, int insn_idx) { - pr_debug("prog '%s': relo #%d: substituting insn #%d w/ invalid insn\n", - prog_name, relo_idx, insn_idx); - insn->code = BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL; - insn->dst_reg = 0; - insn->src_reg = 0; - insn->off = 0; - /* if this instruction is reachable (not a dead code), - * verifier will complain with the following message: - * invalid func unknown#195896080 - */ - insn->imm = 195896080; /* => 0xbad2310 => "bad relo" */ + int insn_cnt = is_ldimm64_insn(insn) ? 2 : 1; + int i; + + for (i = 0; i < insn_cnt; i++) { + pr_debug("prog '%s': relo #%d: substituting insn #%d w/ invalid insn\n", + prog_name, relo_idx, insn_idx + i); + insn[i].code = BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL; + insn[i].dst_reg = 0; + insn[i].src_reg = 0; + insn[i].off = 0; + /* + * If this instruction is reachable (not dead code), the verifier + * will complain with "invalid func unknown#195896080". + */ + insn[i].imm = 195896080; /* => 0xbad2310 => "bad relo" */ + } + + return 0; } static int insn_bpf_size_to_bytes(struct bpf_insn *insn) @@ -927,17 +934,6 @@ static int bpf_core_patch_insn(const char *prog_name, struct bpf_insn *insn, class = BPF_CLASS(insn->code); - if (res->poison) { -poison: - /* poison second part of ldimm64 to avoid confusing error from - * verifier about "unknown opcode 00" - */ - if (is_ldimm64_insn(insn)) - bpf_core_poison_insn(prog_name, relo_idx, insn_idx + 1, insn + 1); - bpf_core_poison_insn(prog_name, relo_idx, insn_idx, insn); - return 0; - } - orig_val = res->orig_val; new_val = res->new_val; @@ -945,7 +941,9 @@ static int bpf_core_patch_insn(const char *prog_name, struct bpf_insn *insn, case BPF_ALU: case BPF_ALU64: if (BPF_SRC(insn->code) != BPF_K) - return -EINVAL; + goto bad_insn; + if (res->poison) + return bpf_core_poison_insn(prog_name, relo_idx, insn, insn_idx); if (res->validate && insn->imm != orig_val) { pr_warn("prog '%s': relo #%d: unexpected insn #%d (ALU/ALU64) value: got %u, exp %u -> %u\n", prog_name, relo_idx, @@ -961,6 +959,8 @@ static int bpf_core_patch_insn(const char *prog_name, struct bpf_insn *insn, case BPF_LDX: case BPF_ST: case BPF_STX: + if (res->poison) + return bpf_core_poison_insn(prog_name, relo_idx, insn, insn_idx); if (res->validate && insn->off != orig_val) { pr_warn("prog '%s': relo #%d: unexpected insn #%d (LDX/ST/STX) value: got %u, exp %u -> %u\n", prog_name, relo_idx, insn_idx, insn->off, orig_val, new_val); @@ -975,7 +975,7 @@ static int bpf_core_patch_insn(const char *prog_name, struct bpf_insn *insn, pr_warn("prog '%s': relo #%d: insn #%d (LDX/ST/STX) accesses field incorrectly. " "Make sure you are accessing pointers, unsigned integers, or fields of matching type and size.\n", prog_name, relo_idx, insn_idx); - goto poison; + return bpf_core_poison_insn(prog_name, relo_idx, insn, insn_idx); } orig_val = insn->off; @@ -1017,6 +1017,9 @@ static int bpf_core_patch_insn(const char *prog_name, struct bpf_insn *insn, return -EINVAL; } + if (res->poison) + return bpf_core_poison_insn(prog_name, relo_idx, insn, insn_idx); + imm = (__u32)insn[0].imm | ((__u64)insn[1].imm << 32); if (res->validate && imm != orig_val) { pr_warn("prog '%s': relo #%d: unexpected insn #%d (LDIMM64) value: got %llu, exp %u -> %u\n", @@ -1034,6 +1037,7 @@ static int bpf_core_patch_insn(const char *prog_name, struct bpf_insn *insn, break; } default: +bad_insn: pr_warn("prog '%s': relo #%d: trying to relocate unrecognized insn #%d, code:0x%x, src:0x%x, dst:0x%x, off:0x%x, imm:0x%x\n", prog_name, relo_idx, insn_idx, insn->code, insn->src_reg, insn->dst_reg, insn->off, insn->imm); -- 2.53.0