From: Matt Bobrowski <mattbobrowski@google.com>
To: Shuran Liu <electronlsr@gmail.com>
Cc: song@kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org,
daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev,
eddyz87@gmail.com, yonghong.song@linux.dev,
john.fastabend@gmail.com, kpsingh@kernel.org, sdf@fomichev.me,
haoluo@google.com, jolsa@kernel.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
mhiramat@kernel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf 0/2] bpf: fix bpf_d_path() helper prototype
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 19:22:35 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aS3q-wLcRFuCGuUG@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251201143813.5212-1-electronlsr@gmail.com>
On Mon, Dec 01, 2025 at 10:38:11PM +0800, Shuran Liu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this series fixes a verifier regression for bpf_d_path() introduced by
> commit 37cce22dbd51 ("bpf: verifier: Refactor helper access type
> tracking") and adds a small selftest to exercise the helper from an
> LSM program.
>
> Commit 37cce22dbd51 started distinguishing read vs write accesses
> performed by helpers. bpf_d_path()'s buffer argument was left as
> ARG_PTR_TO_MEM without MEM_WRITE, so the verifier could incorrectly
> assume that the buffer contents are unchanged across the helper call
> and base its optimizations on this wrong assumption.
>
> In practice this showed up as a misbehaving LSM BPF program that calls
> bpf_d_path() and then does a simple prefix comparison on the returned
> path: the program would sometimes take the "mismatch" branch even
> though both bytes being compared were actually equal.
FTR, I strongly encourage any new BPF LSM implementation to consider
using the newer BPF kfunc alternative instead, being
bpf_path_d_path().
> Patch 1 fixes bpf_d_path()'s helper prototype by marking the buffer
> argument as ARG_PTR_TO_MEM | MEM_WRITE, so that the verifier correctly
> models the write to the caller-provided buffer.
This is the correct thing to do, appreciate you sending through the
fix.
> Patch 2 adds a minimal selftest under tools/testing/selftests/bpf that
> hooks bprm_check_security, calls bpf_d_path() on a binary under /tmp/,
> and verifies that the prefix comparison on the returned path keeps
> working.
Makes sense to add a test for this regression, but please also see my
comments against this patch.
> On my local setup, tools/testing/selftests/bpf does not build fully
> due to unrelated tests using newer helpers. I validated this series by
> manually reproducing the issue with a small LSM program and by
> building and running only the new d_path_lsm test on kernels with and
> without patch 1 applied.
>
> Thanks,
> Shuran Liu
>
> Shuran Liu (2):
> bpf: mark bpf_d_path() buffer as writeable
> selftests/bpf: add regression test for bpf_d_path()
>
> kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 2 +-
> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/d_path_lsm.c | 27 ++++++++++++
> .../selftests/bpf/progs/d_path_lsm.bpf.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 71 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/d_path_lsm.c
> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/d_path_lsm.bpf.c
>
> --
> 2.52.0
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-12-01 19:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-12-01 14:38 [PATCH bpf 0/2] bpf: fix bpf_d_path() helper prototype Shuran Liu
2025-12-01 14:38 ` [PATCH bpf 1/2] bpf: mark bpf_d_path() buffer as writeable Shuran Liu
2025-12-01 18:48 ` Matt Bobrowski
2025-12-01 14:38 ` [PATCH bpf 2/2] selftests/bpf: add regression test for bpf_d_path() Shuran Liu
2025-12-01 19:16 ` Matt Bobrowski
2025-12-01 19:22 ` Matt Bobrowski [this message]
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=aS3q-wLcRFuCGuUG@google.com \
--to=mattbobrowski@google.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=electronlsr@gmail.com \
--cc=haoluo@google.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
--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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).