From: Paul Chaignon <paul.chaignon@gmail.com>
To: stable@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>, Tao Lyu <tao.lyu@epfl.ch>,
Levi Zim <rsworktech@outlook.com>
Subject: [PATCH 6.6.y 00/10] bpf: fix precision backtracking instruction iteration
Date: Mon, 11 May 2026 18:21:22 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <cover.1778516196.git.paul.chaignon@gmail.com> (raw)
The first patch in this patchset was already backported before, as
commit ecc2aeeaa08a, to address CVE-2023-52920 [1]. That backport was
however later reverted in commit 199f04528737 because it reduced the
efficiency of the BPF verifier, to the point that it rejected some
previously-accepted programs.
This patchset backports commit 41f6f64e6999 ("bpf: support non-r10
register spill/fill to/from stack in precision tracking") again, but
this time with the subsequent commits that improved the efficiency of
the verifier. In addition, the last two commits fix and test a
regression that was later found in commit 41f6f64e6999.
It took us a while with Shung-Hsi to come back to this because we felt
we didn't have enough test coverage to backport this. That changed with
the stable BPF CI Shung-Hsi built for v6.6, which successfully
validated this patchset [2]. In addition, I tested the impact of this
patchset on the verifier's efficiency with Cilium's BPF programs [3]:
it significantly improves, reducing the number of instructions the
verifier has to analyze by up to 87% in some cases!
1: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-cve-announce/2024110518-CVE-2023-52920-17f6@gregkh/
2: https://github.com/pchaigno/stable-bpf-ci/actions/runs/25671397661/job/75357317078
3: https://pchaigno.github.io/test-verifier-complexity.html
Andrii Nakryiko (10):
bpf: support non-r10 register spill/fill to/from stack in precision
tracking
selftests/bpf: add stack access precision test
bpf: preserve STACK_ZERO slots on partial reg spills
selftests/bpf: validate STACK_ZERO is preserved on subreg spill
bpf: preserve constant zero when doing partial register restore
selftests/bpf: validate zero preservation for sub-slot loads
bpf: track aligned STACK_ZERO cases as imprecise spilled registers
selftests/bpf: validate precision logic in
partial_stack_load_preserves_zeros
bpf: handle fake register spill to stack with BPF_ST_MEM instruction
selftests/bpf: validate fake register spill/fill precision
backtracking logic
include/linux/bpf_verifier.h | 31 +-
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 233 +++++++++------
.../selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_spill_fill.c | 281 ++++++++++++++++++
.../bpf/progs/verifier_subprog_precision.c | 87 +++++-
.../testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/precise.c | 38 ++-
5 files changed, 557 insertions(+), 113 deletions(-)
--
2.43.0
next reply other threads:[~2026-05-11 16:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-05-11 16:21 Paul Chaignon [this message]
2026-05-11 16:22 ` [PATCH 6.6.y 01/10] bpf: support non-r10 register spill/fill to/from stack in precision tracking Paul Chaignon
2026-05-11 16:23 ` [PATCH 6.6.y 02/10] selftests/bpf: add stack access precision test Paul Chaignon
2026-05-11 16:23 ` [PATCH 6.6.y 03/10] bpf: preserve STACK_ZERO slots on partial reg spills Paul Chaignon
2026-05-11 16:24 ` [PATCH 6.6.y 04/10] selftests/bpf: validate STACK_ZERO is preserved on subreg spill Paul Chaignon
2026-05-11 16:24 ` [PATCH 6.6.y 05/10] bpf: preserve constant zero when doing partial register restore Paul Chaignon
2026-05-11 16:24 ` [PATCH 6.6.y 06/10] selftests/bpf: validate zero preservation for sub-slot loads Paul Chaignon
2026-05-11 16:24 ` [PATCH 6.6.y 07/10] bpf: track aligned STACK_ZERO cases as imprecise spilled registers Paul Chaignon
2026-05-11 16:24 ` [PATCH 6.6.y 08/10] selftests/bpf: validate precision logic in partial_stack_load_preserves_zeros Paul Chaignon
2026-05-11 16:25 ` [PATCH 6.6.y 09/10] bpf: handle fake register spill to stack with BPF_ST_MEM instruction Paul Chaignon
2026-05-11 16:25 ` [PATCH 6.6.y 10/10] selftests/bpf: validate fake register spill/fill precision backtracking logic Paul Chaignon
2026-05-12 0:17 ` [PATCH 6.6.y 00/10] bpf: fix precision backtracking instruction iteration Sasha Levin
2026-05-12 12:01 ` Paul Chaignon
2026-05-12 6:51 ` Levi Zim
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=cover.1778516196.git.paul.chaignon@gmail.com \
--to=paul.chaignon@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=rsworktech@outlook.com \
--cc=shung-hsi.yu@suse.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tao.lyu@epfl.ch \
/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