Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 12/16] bpf: Enable stack argument support for x86_64

Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 12/16] bpf: Enable stack argument support for x86_64

[Yonghong Song]

On 4/16/26 10:03 PM, sashiko-bot@kernel.org wrote:
> Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s):
> - [High] Enabling `bpf_jit_supports_stack_args()` for x86_64 without the corresponding JIT implementation introduces a bisection-breaking regression that can lead to arbitrary kernel memory writes and ABI violations.
> --
>
> commit b40feee41e4472d0e27be38b4c99c940abe3c1ba
> Author: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
>
> bpf: Enable stack argument support for x86_64
>
> This commit enables stack argument support for the x86_64 JIT and verifier
> to allow BPF programs and kfuncs to use more than 5 arguments.
>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>> index e9b78040d703e..32864dbc2c4e8 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>> @@ -3937,6 +3937,11 @@ bool bpf_jit_supports_kfunc_call(void)
>>   	return true;
>>   }
>>   
>> +bool bpf_jit_supports_stack_args(void)
>> +{
>> +	return true;
>> +}
>> +
> Does enabling this without the actual JIT implementation break bisection?
>
> If bpf_jit_supports_stack_args() returns true, the verifier will allow
> instructions using BPF_REG_PARAMS (register 11) to handle stack arguments.
> However, since the JIT support isn't implemented in this commit,
> BPF_REG_PARAMS is not yet defined in the JIT's reg2hex array.
>
> Could this cause reg2hex[11] to implicitly default to 0, which maps to
> RAX (BPF_REG_0)? If the verifier emits instructions using BPF_REG_PARAMS,
> the x86 JIT might miscompile them using RAX as the base register, potentially
> allowing an arbitrary kernel memory write since R0 is controllable by the
> BPF program.
>
> Additionally, it appears kfunc calls with >5 arguments won't have their
> arguments correctly marshaled to the System V ABI (like moving the 6th
> argument to R9), which could lead to reading uninitialized garbage from
> registers and the stack.
>
> I see the JIT implementation is added later in the series in commit
> 41dcf99330b6b ("bpf,x86: Implement JIT support for stack arguments").
> Should the JIT implementation be merged before or in the same patch as
> this feature enablement to maintain bisection?

Good point. Will enable stack args in JIT patch.

>
> [ ... ]
>