Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Skip bounds adjustment for conditional jumps on same register

[KaFai Wan <kafai.wan@linux.dev>]

On Fri, 2025-10-24 at 09:40 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 9:38 AM KaFai Wan <kafai.wan@linux.dev> wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, 2025-10-24 at 09:21 -0700, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2025-10-25 at 00:13 +0800, KaFai Wan wrote:
> > > 
> > > [...]
> > > 
> > > > For non-scalar cases we only allow pointer comparison on pkt_ptr, this check is before
> > > > is_branch_taken()
> > > > 
> > > >     src_reg = &regs[insn->src_reg];
> > > >     if (!(reg_is_pkt_pointer_any(dst_reg) && reg_is_pkt_pointer_any(src_reg)) &&
> > > >         is_pointer_value(env, insn->src_reg)) {
> > > >             verbose(env, "R%d pointer comparison prohibited\n",
> > > >                     insn->src_reg);
> > > >             return -EACCES;
> > > >     }
> > > > 
> > > > and in the end of check_cond_jmp_op() (after is_branch_taken()), we checked again
> > > > 
> > > >     } else if (!try_match_pkt_pointers(insn, dst_reg, &regs[insn->src_reg],
> > > >                                        this_branch, other_branch) &&
> > > >                is_pointer_value(env, insn->dst_reg)) {
> > > >             verbose(env, "R%d pointer comparison prohibited\n",
> > > >                     insn->dst_reg);
> > > >             return -EACCES;
> > > >     }
> > > > 
> > > > this time we check if it is valid comparison on pkt_ptr in try_match_pkt_pointers().
> > > > 
> > > > Currently we just allow 4 opcode (BPF_JGT, BPF_JLT, BPF_JGE, BPF_JLE) on pkt_ptr, and with
> > > > conditions. But we bypass these prohibits in privileged mode (is_pointer_value() always
> > > > return false in privileged mode).
> > > > 
> > > > So the logic skip these prohibits for pkt_ptr in unprivileged mode.
> > > 
> > > Well, yes, but do you really need to do forbid `if r0 > r0 goto ...` in unpriv?
> > 
> > Currently `if r0 > r0 goto ...` is forbid in unpriv, but we can allow it.
> 
> Let's not relax unpriv. We don't need new threads with researchers
> whether such things can be exploited.
> 
Ok, I'll keep the logic for both scalar and non-scalar cases.

-- 
Thanks,
KaFai