From: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
To: KaFai Wan <kafai.wan@linux.dev>,
ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, john.fastabend@gmail.com,
andrii@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev, eddyz87@gmail.com,
song@kernel.org, kpsingh@kernel.org, sdf@fomichev.me,
haoluo@google.com, jolsa@kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org,
paul.chaignon@gmail.com, m.shachnai@gmail.com,
luis.gerhorst@fau.de, colin.i.king@gmail.com,
harishankar.vishwanathan@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: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Skip bounds adjustment for conditional jumps on same register
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 11:14:56 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <39af9321-fb9b-4cee-84f1-77248a375e85@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251022164457.1203756-2-kafai.wan@linux.dev>
On 10/22/25 9:44 AM, KaFai Wan wrote:
> When conditional jumps are performed on the same register (e.g., r0 <= r0,
> r0 > r0, r0 < r0) where the register holds a scalar with range, the verifier
> incorrectly attempts to adjust the register's min/max bounds. This leads to
> invalid range bounds and triggers a BUG warning:
>
> verifier bug: REG INVARIANTS VIOLATION (true_reg1): range bounds violation u64=[0x1, 0x0] s64=[0x1, 0x0] u32=[0x1, 0x0] s32=[0x1, 0x0] var_off=(0x0, 0x0)
> WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 93 at kernel/bpf/verifier.c:2731 reg_bounds_sanity_check+0x163/0x220
> Modules linked in:
> CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 93 Comm: repro-x-3 Tainted: G W 6.18.0-rc1-ge7586577b75f-dirty #218 PREEMPT(full)
> Tainted: [W]=WARN
> Hardware name: QEMU Ubuntu 24.04 PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.16.3-debian-1.16.3-2 04/01/2014
> RIP: 0010:reg_bounds_sanity_check+0x163/0x220
> Call Trace:
> <TASK>
> reg_set_min_max.part.0+0x1b1/0x360
> check_cond_jmp_op+0x1195/0x1a60
> do_check_common+0x33ac/0x33c0
> ...
>
> The issue occurs in reg_set_min_max() function where bounds adjustment logic
> is applied even when both registers being compared are the same. Comparing a
> register with itself should not change its bounds since the comparison result
> is always known (e.g., r0 == r0 is always true, r0 < r0 is always false).
>
> Fix this by adding an early return in reg_set_min_max() when false_reg1 and
> false_reg2 point to the same register, skipping the unnecessary bounds
> adjustment that leads to the verifier bug.
>
> 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/
> Fixes: 0df1a55afa83 ("bpf: Warn on internal verifier errors")
> Signed-off-by: KaFai Wan <kafai.wan@linux.dev>
> ---
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index 6d175849e57a..420ad512d1af 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -16429,6 +16429,10 @@ static int reg_set_min_max(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
> if (false_reg1->type != SCALAR_VALUE || false_reg2->type != SCALAR_VALUE)
> return 0;
>
> + /* If conditional jumps on the same register, skip the adjustment */
> + if (false_reg1 == false_reg2)
> + return 0;
Your change looks good. But this is a special case and it should not
happen for any compiler generated code. So could you investigate
why regs_refine_cond_op() does not work? Since false_reg1 and false_reg2
is the same, so register refinement should keep the same. Probably
some minor change in regs_refine_cond_op(...) should work?
> +
> /* fallthrough (FALSE) branch */
> regs_refine_cond_op(false_reg1, false_reg2, rev_opcode(opcode), is_jmp32);
> reg_bounds_sync(false_reg1);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-22 18:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-22 16:44 [PATCH bpf-next 0/2] bpf: Skip bounds adjustment for conditional jumps on same register KaFai Wan
2025-10-22 16:44 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] " KaFai Wan
2025-10-22 18:14 ` Yonghong Song [this message]
2025-10-22 19:46 ` Eduard Zingerman
2025-10-22 20:12 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2025-10-22 20:30 ` Eduard Zingerman
2025-10-22 20:34 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2025-10-23 11:26 ` KaFai Wan
2025-10-23 17:38 ` Eduard Zingerman
2025-10-24 16:13 ` KaFai Wan
2025-10-24 16:21 ` Eduard Zingerman
2025-10-24 16:37 ` KaFai Wan
2025-10-24 16:40 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2025-10-24 16:53 ` KaFai Wan
2025-10-22 16:44 ` [PATCH bpf-next 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=39af9321-fb9b-4cee-84f1-77248a375e85@linux.dev \
--to=yonghong.song@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=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kafai.wan@linux.dev \
--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 \
/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