From: KaFai Wan <kafai.wan@linux.dev>
To: ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, john.fastabend@gmail.com,
andrii@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev, eddyz87@gmail.com,
song@kernel.org, yonghong.song@linux.dev, kpsingh@kernel.org,
sdf@fomichev.me, haoluo@google.com, jolsa@kernel.org,
shuah@kernel.org, paul.chaignon@gmail.com, m.shachnai@gmail.com,
henriette.herzog@rub.de, kafai.wan@linux.dev,
luis.gerhorst@fau.de, harishankar.vishwanathan@gmail.com,
colin.i.king@gmail.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Kaiyan Mei <M202472210@hust.edu.cn>, Yinhao Hu <dddddd@hust.edu.cn>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/2] bpf: Skip bounds adjustment for conditional jumps on same scalar register
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2025 23:41:06 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20251031154107.403054-2-kafai.wan@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251031154107.403054-1-kafai.wan@linux.dev>
When conditional jumps are performed on the same scalar register
(e.g., r0 <= r0, r0 > r0, r0 < r0), the BPF verifier incorrectly
attempts to adjust the register's min/max bounds. This leads to
invalid range bounds and triggers a BUG warning.
The problematic BPF program:
0: call bpf_get_prandom_u32
1: w8 = 0x80000000
2: r0 &= r8
3: if r0 > r0 goto <exit>
The instruction 3 triggers kernel warning:
3: if r0 > r0 goto <exit>
true_reg1: range bounds violation u64=[0x1, 0x0] s64=[0x1, 0x0] u32=[0x1, 0x0] s32=[0x1, 0x0] var_off=(0x0, 0x0)
true_reg2: const tnum out of sync with range bounds u64=[0x0, 0xffffffffffffffff] s64=[0x8000000000000000, 0x7fffffffffffffff] var_off=(0x0, 0x0)
Comparing a register with itself should not change its bounds and
for most comparison operations, comparing a register with itself has
a known result (e.g., r0 == r0 is always true, r0 < r0 is always false).
Fix this by:
1. Enhance is_scalar_branch_taken() to properly handle branch direction
computation for same register comparisons across all BPF jump operations
2. Adds early return in reg_set_min_max() to avoid bounds adjustment
for unknown branch directions (e.g., BPF_JSET) on the same register
The fix ensures that unnecessary bounds adjustments are skipped, preventing
the verifier bug while maintaining correct branch direction analysis.
Reported-by: Kaiyan Mei <M202472210@hust.edu.cn>
Reported-by: Yinhao Hu <dddddd@hust.edu.cn>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/1881f0f5.300df.199f2576a01.Coremail.kaiyanm@hust.edu.cn/
Signed-off-by: KaFai Wan <kafai.wan@linux.dev>
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 33 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 542e23fb19c7..a571263f4ebe 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -15995,6 +15995,8 @@ static int is_scalar_branch_taken(struct bpf_reg_state *reg1, struct bpf_reg_sta
switch (opcode) {
case BPF_JEQ:
+ if (reg1 == reg2)
+ return 1;
/* constants, umin/umax and smin/smax checks would be
* redundant in this case because they all should match
*/
@@ -16021,6 +16023,8 @@ static int is_scalar_branch_taken(struct bpf_reg_state *reg1, struct bpf_reg_sta
}
break;
case BPF_JNE:
+ if (reg1 == reg2)
+ return 0;
/* constants, umin/umax and smin/smax checks would be
* redundant in this case because they all should match
*/
@@ -16047,6 +16051,12 @@ static int is_scalar_branch_taken(struct bpf_reg_state *reg1, struct bpf_reg_sta
}
break;
case BPF_JSET:
+ if (reg1 == reg2) {
+ if (tnum_is_const(t1))
+ return t1.value != 0;
+ else
+ return (smin1 <= 0 && smax1 >= 0) ? -1 : 1;
+ }
if (!is_reg_const(reg2, is_jmp32)) {
swap(reg1, reg2);
swap(t1, t2);
@@ -16059,48 +16069,64 @@ static int is_scalar_branch_taken(struct bpf_reg_state *reg1, struct bpf_reg_sta
return 0;
break;
case BPF_JGT:
+ if (reg1 == reg2)
+ return 0;
if (umin1 > umax2)
return 1;
else if (umax1 <= umin2)
return 0;
break;
case BPF_JSGT:
+ if (reg1 == reg2)
+ return 0;
if (smin1 > smax2)
return 1;
else if (smax1 <= smin2)
return 0;
break;
case BPF_JLT:
+ if (reg1 == reg2)
+ return 0;
if (umax1 < umin2)
return 1;
else if (umin1 >= umax2)
return 0;
break;
case BPF_JSLT:
+ if (reg1 == reg2)
+ return 0;
if (smax1 < smin2)
return 1;
else if (smin1 >= smax2)
return 0;
break;
case BPF_JGE:
+ if (reg1 == reg2)
+ return 1;
if (umin1 >= umax2)
return 1;
else if (umax1 < umin2)
return 0;
break;
case BPF_JSGE:
+ if (reg1 == reg2)
+ return 1;
if (smin1 >= smax2)
return 1;
else if (smax1 < smin2)
return 0;
break;
case BPF_JLE:
+ if (reg1 == reg2)
+ return 1;
if (umax1 <= umin2)
return 1;
else if (umin1 > umax2)
return 0;
break;
case BPF_JSLE:
+ if (reg1 == reg2)
+ return 1;
if (smax1 <= smin2)
return 1;
else if (smin1 > smax2)
@@ -16439,6 +16465,13 @@ static int reg_set_min_max(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
if (false_reg1->type != SCALAR_VALUE || false_reg2->type != SCALAR_VALUE)
return 0;
+ /* We compute branch direction for same SCALAR_VALUE registers in
+ * is_scalar_branch_taken(). For unknown branch directions (e.g., BPF_JSET)
+ * on the same registers, we don't need to adjust the min/max values.
+ */
+ if (false_reg1 == false_reg2)
+ return 0;
+
/* fallthrough (FALSE) branch */
regs_refine_cond_op(false_reg1, false_reg2, rev_opcode(opcode), is_jmp32);
reg_bounds_sync(false_reg1);
--
2.43.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-31 15:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-31 15:41 [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/2] bpf: Skip bounds adjustment for conditional jumps on same scalar register KaFai Wan
2025-10-31 15:41 ` KaFai Wan [this message]
2025-10-31 16:37 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/2] " Alexei Starovoitov
2025-11-03 6:23 ` KaFai Wan
2025-10-31 15:41 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add test " KaFai Wan
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=20251031154107.403054-2-kafai.wan@linux.dev \
--to=kafai.wan@linux.dev \
--cc=M202472210@hust.edu.cn \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=colin.i.king@gmail.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=dddddd@hust.edu.cn \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=haoluo@google.com \
--cc=harishankar.vishwanathan@gmail.com \
--cc=henriette.herzog@rub.de \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luis.gerhorst@fau.de \
--cc=m.shachnai@gmail.com \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=paul.chaignon@gmail.com \
--cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
--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