public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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


  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