mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org
To: tj@kernel.org,ast@kernel.org,daniel@iogearbox.net,andrii@kernel.org,eddyz87@gmail.com,memxor@gmail.com
Cc: martin.lau@linux.dev,song@kernel.org,yonghong.song@linux.dev,jolsa@kernel.org,emil@etsalapatis.com,ihor.solodrai@linux.dev,ameryhung@gmail.com,bpf@vger.kernel.org,sched-ext@lists.linux.dev,linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,ast@kernel.org,andrii@kernel.org,daniel@iogearbox.net,martin.lau@kernel.org,eddyz87@gmail.com,yonghong.song@linux.dev,mason@kernel.org,ihor.solodrai@linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf v2] bpf: Keep generic __uninit kfunc arguments live
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2026 01:15:48 +0000 (UTC)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <d03c668fa32e27b030d7dbb90e39ac6142970c5d204ec30ed9b3ab82a37d157b@mail.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b6782cd33f9ccc6265b0b2140cf1f68d@kernel.org>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3657 bytes --]

> bpf: Keep generic __uninit kfunc arguments live
>
> Stack liveness models a kfunc's __uninit pointer argument as a pure write:
> whatever the buffer holds before the call is dead, and 2cb27158adb3 ("bpf:
> poison dead stack slots") poisons those slots at every checkpoint the path
> visits before the call. Argument validation disagrees. Only dynptr arguments
> honor __uninit. A generic fixed-size buffer goes through check_mem_reg(),
> whose read pass requires every byte readable. The two rules meet at the call
> and the poisoned buffer is rejected with "slot poisoned by dead code
> elimination", even when the program initialized it.
>
> Every kfunc with a generic __uninit output argument is affected,
> bpf_ksock_create() through err__uninit and sched_ext's scx_bpf_cid_topo()
> through its output struct. The rejection needs the buffer's slots to be
> allocated and dead at a checkpoint, for example on the second iteration of a
> loop around the call. Before e566701b9b0c ("bpf: Check fixed-size mem args
> of helpers and kfuncs the same way") kfunc arguments could read poisoned
> slots, so the call passed, but the slots stayed poisoned and the program's
> next read of the buffer was rejected instead.
>
> Restrict the liveness write-only exception to dynptr arguments, where
> validation accepts uninitialized output. A generic __uninit buffer stays
> live and is never poisoned, and validation keeps requiring it to be
> initialized. Add a selftest with a scalar output buffer and a checkpoint
> between its initialization and the call.
>
> v2: Rebased on bpf/master.

This isn't a bug, but could the 'v2: Rebased on bpf/master.' note move
below the --- line so it stays out of the git log?

> Fixes: 2cb27158adb3 ("bpf: poison dead stack slots")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v7.1+

This isn't a bug, but since this targets bpf, would it be worth dropping
the Cc: stable trailer and instead noting the v7.1+ backport request
under the --- line, as bpf_devel_QA.rst asks?

> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>

> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index ddba53eaa3331..310a3c6339a98 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -13588,7 +13588,8 @@ s64 bpf_kfunc_stack_access_bytes(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *
>  	/* KF_ITER_NEW kfuncs initialize the iterator state at arg 0 */
>  	if (arg == 0 && meta.kfunc_flags & KF_ITER_NEW)
>  		return -size;
> -	if (is_kfunc_arg_uninit(btf, &args[arg]))
> +	/* only dynptr validation accepts an uninitialized __uninit argument */
> +	if (is_kfunc_arg_dynptr(btf, &args[arg]) && is_kfunc_arg_uninit(btf, &args[arg]))
>  		return -size;
>  	return size;
>  }

Amery Hung raised a design concern on v1 about whether restricting the
liveness exception to dynptrs is the right fix.

The reviewer suggests that the underlying issue is that generic argument
validation doesn't honor __uninit, and that generic __uninit arguments
should behave like helper output buffers: generate MEM_UNINIT | MEM_WRITE,
validate as write-only, and mark the written range initialized after the
kfunc call. With that approach, bpf_kfunc_stack_access_bytes() could
continue returning -size for generic __uninit arguments.

The current change instead makes their previous contents live and requires
callers to initialize an argument explicitly declared uninitialized.

Was this comment considered for v2?


---
AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md

CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/34913753963

      reply	other threads:[~2026-09-15  1:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-09-15  0:27 Tejun Heo
2026-09-15  1:15 ` bot+bpf-ci [this message]

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=d03c668fa32e27b030d7dbb90e39ac6142970c5d204ec30ed9b3ab82a37d157b@mail.kernel.org \
    --to=bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org \
    --cc=ameryhung@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --cc=emil@etsalapatis.com \
    --cc=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
    --cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
    --cc=mason@kernel.org \
    --cc=memxor@gmail.com \
    --cc=sched-ext@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=song@kernel.org \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
    /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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®