From: Leon Hwang <hffilwlqm@gmail.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>, bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org
Cc: bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
Eduard <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>,
Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
Yuyang Huang <yuyanghuang@google.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@fomichev.me>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
kernel-patches-bot@fb.com, Mykyta Yatsenko <yatsenko@meta.com>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>,
Chris Mason <clm@meta.com>,
Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/3] bpf: Check tail zero of bpf_map_info
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 09:56:50 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ca0d8a38-90e2-4f59-b24f-856f6e99ab63@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAADnVQJHCwcFQG5FiejiyTHEFBRGrKqaGAfwVZJXANWuP9rJww@mail.gmail.com>
On 5/6/26 00:39, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2026 at 8:45 AM <bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
>>> index 625a4366fe6d..1007fb7c87e9 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
>>> @@ -5400,10 +5400,11 @@ static int bpf_map_get_info_by_fd(struct file *file,
>>> {
>>> struct bpf_map_info __user *uinfo = u64_to_user_ptr(attr->info.info);
>>> struct bpf_map_info info;
>>> - u32 info_len = attr->info.info_len;
>>> + u32 info_len = attr->info.info_len, len;
>>> int err;
>>>
>>> - err = bpf_check_uarg_tail_zero(USER_BPFPTR(uinfo), sizeof(info), info_len);
>>> + len = offsetofend(struct bpf_map_info, hash_size);
>>> + err = bpf_check_uarg_tail_zero(USER_BPFPTR(uinfo), len, info_len);
>>
>> Does this change break the ABI for existing deployed binaries? Previously,
>> expected_size was 104 (sizeof(info)). If an existing binary passes info_len
>> = 104 with uninitialized stack garbage in the 4-byte padding,
>> bpf_check_uarg_tail_zero() would see actual_size <= expected_size (104 <=
>> 104) and immediately return 0.
>>
>> By reducing expected_size to 100, actual_size > expected_size (104 > 100),
>> so bpf_check_uarg_tail_zero() will actively check the 4 padding bytes and
>> return -E2BIG if they contain garbage. This rejects previously working
>> applications.
>>
>> Additionally, does this actually protect against the stated future issue?
>> If a future kernel adds a new 4-byte field, the struct size stays 104, and
>> the new kernel's expected_size will be 104. At that point, those old buggy
>> binaries passing info_len = 104 will once again hit the fast path
>> (actual_size <= expected_size), skipping the check and allowing the
>> uninitialized padding to be consumed as the new field.
>
> bot's concerns are valid.
> Let's add __u32 :32 to bpf_map_info at the same time.
>
Will add it.
Thanks,
Leon
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-05 1:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-04 15:05 [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/3] bpf: Check tail zero of bpf_map_info and bpf_prog_info Leon Hwang
2026-06-04 15:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/3] bpf: Check tail zero of bpf_map_info Leon Hwang
2026-06-04 15:45 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-06-04 16:39 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-06-05 1:56 ` Leon Hwang [this message]
2026-06-04 15:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/3] bpf: Check tail zero of bpf_prog_info Leon Hwang
2026-06-04 15:45 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-06-04 15:05 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/3] selftests/bpf: Add tests to verify checking padding bytes for bpf_[map,prog]_info Leon Hwang
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=ca0d8a38-90e2-4f59-b24f-856f6e99ab63@gmail.com \
--to=hffilwlqm@gmail.com \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=clm@meta.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davemarchevsky@fb.com \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-patches-bot@fb.com \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=yatsenko@meta.com \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
--cc=yuyanghuang@google.com \
/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
Powered by JetHome