From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Haoran Wang" <haoranwangsec@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing: reject trace events with an empty TP_STRUCT__entry
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2026 07:56:09 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <sashiko-outbox-173982@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6ad1d48d.a461c41f.282b8.7a97@mx.google.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [High] tracing: incomplete fix leaves BPF OOB read exploitable for zero-field user_events
--
commit 4bc63c3e7a59307c8dcbd3d4bfc283a9c62599d9
Author: Haoran Wang <haoranwangsec@gmail.com>
tracing: reject trace events with an empty TP_STRUCT__entry
This patch modifies event_init() to reject trace events with an empty
TP_STRUCT__entry by checking if the fields_array is empty. The fix attempts
to prevent an out-of-bounds read in trace_event_get_offsets() when BPF
programs attach to zero-field tracepoints, but it specifically exempts
events that implement a get_fields callback.
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_events.c b/kernel/trace/trace_events.c
> index 30c0ddf90887f..4bdd31dd24234 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/trace_events.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_events.c
> @@ -3406,6 +3406,11 @@ static int event_init(struct trace_event_call *call)
> if (WARN_ON(!name))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> + if (call->class->fields_array &&
> + !call->class->fields_array[0].type &&
> + !call->class->get_fields)
> + return -EINVAL;
[Severity: High]
Does this leave the out-of-bounds read exploitable for zero-field user_events?
The added check explicitly exempts events that define a get_fields callback.
The user_events subsystem defines user_event_get_fields and therefore bypasses
this new validation.
Since unprivileged users can dynamically create user_events with zero fields
(for example, via echo 'my_event' > user_events_data), user_event_parse_fields()
returns early:
kernel/trace/trace_events_user.c:user_event_parse_fields() {
...
if (args == NULL)
return 0;
...
}
This results in an empty user->fields list. Because user_events have the
TRACE_EVENT_FL_TRACEPOINT flag, BPF programs can attach to them.
__perf_event_set_bpf_prog() then calls the unpatched
trace_event_get_offsets(), which dereferences the empty list via
list_first_entry():
kernel/trace/trace_events.c:trace_event_get_offsets() {
...
tail = list_first_entry(head, struct ftrace_event_field, link);
return tail->offset + tail->size;
}
This reads out-of-bounds memory, bypassing BPF context size validation and
potentially allowing an unprivileged attacker to load a BPF program that
reads adjacent kernel memory during tracepoint execution.
Should there be an additional check in trace_event_get_offsets() or should
zero-field user_events be rejected entirely?
> +
> if (call->class->raw_init) {
> ret = call->class->raw_init(call);
> if (ret < 0 && ret != -ENOSYS)
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/6ad1d48d.a461c41f.282b8.7a97@mx.google.com?part=1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-16 7:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-16 7:38 [PATCH] tracing: reject trace events with an empty TP_STRUCT__entry Haoran Wang
2026-10-16 7:56 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2026-10-16 6:57 Haoran Wang
2026-10-16 7:08 ` sashiko-bot
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-173982@kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=haoranwangsec@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--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