user/sven/linux.git/kernel/bpf/verifier.c, branch v7.0-rc5

bpf: Fix sync_linked_regs regarding BPF_ADD_CONST32 zext propagation

2026-03-21T20:19:40Z

Jenny reported that in sync_linked_regs() the BPF_ADD_CONST32 flag is checked on known_reg (the register narrowed by a conditional branch) instead of reg (the linked target register created by an alu32 operation). Example case with reg: 1. r6 = bpf_get_prandom_u32() 2. r7 = r6 (linked, same id) 3. w7 += 5 (alu32 -- r7 gets BPF_ADD_CONST32, zero-extended by CPU) 4. if w6 < 0xFFFFFFFC goto safe (narrows r6 to [0xFFFFFFFC, 0xFFFFFFFF]) 5. sync_linked_regs() propagates to r7 but does NOT call zext_32_to_64() 6. Verifier thinks r7 is [0x100000001, 0x100000004] instead of [1, 4] Since known_reg above does not have BPF_ADD_CONST32 set above, zext_32_to_64() is never called on alu32-derived linked registers. This causes the verifier to track incorrect 64-bit bounds, while the CPU correctly zero-extends the 32-bit result. The code checking known_reg->id was correct however (see scalars_alu32_wrap selftest case), but the real fix needs to handle both directions - zext propagation should be done when either register has BPF_ADD_CONST32, since the linked relationship involves a 32-bit operation regardless of which side has the flag. Example case with known_reg (exercised also by scalars_alu32_wrap): 1. r1 = r0; w1 += 0x100 (alu32 -- r1 gets BPF_ADD_CONST32) 2. if r1 > 0x80 - known_reg = r1 (has BPF_ADD_CONST32), reg = r0 (doesn't) Hence, fix it by checking for (reg->id | known_reg->id) & BPF_ADD_CONST32. Moreover, sync_linked_regs() also has a soundness issue when two linked registers used different ALU widths: one with BPF_ADD_CONST32 and the other with BPF_ADD_CONST64. The delta relationship between linked registers assumes the same arithmetic width though. When one register went through alu32 (CPU zero-extends the 32-bit result) and the other went through alu64 (no zero-extension), the propagation produces incorrect bounds. Example: r6 = bpf_get_prandom_u32() // fully unknown if r6 >= 0x100000000 goto out // constrain r6 to [0, U32_MAX] r7 = r6 w7 += 1 // alu32: r7.id = N | BPF_ADD_CONST32 r8 = r6 r8 += 2 // alu64: r8.id = N | BPF_ADD_CONST64 if r7 < 0xFFFFFFFF goto out // narrows r7 to [0xFFFFFFFF, 0xFFFFFFFF] At the branch on r7, sync_linked_regs() runs with known_reg=r7 (BPF_ADD_CONST32) and reg=r8 (BPF_ADD_CONST64). The delta path computes: r8 = r7 + (delta_r8 - delta_r7) = 0xFFFFFFFF + (2 - 1) = 0x100000000 Then, because known_reg->id has BPF_ADD_CONST32, zext_32_to_64(r8) is called, truncating r8 to [0, 0]. But r8 used a 64-bit ALU op -- the CPU does NOT zero-extend it. The actual CPU value of r8 is 0xFFFFFFFE + 2 = 0x100000000, not 0. The verifier now underestimates r8's 64-bit bounds, which is a soundness violation. Fix sync_linked_regs() by skipping propagation when the two registers have mixed ALU widths (one BPF_ADD_CONST32, the other BPF_ADD_CONST64). Lastly, fix regsafe() used for path pruning: the existing checks used "& BPF_ADD_CONST" to test for offset linkage, which treated BPF_ADD_CONST32 and BPF_ADD_CONST64 as equivalent. Fixes: 7a433e519364 ("bpf: Support negative offsets, BPF_SUB, and alu32 for linked register tracking") Reported-by: Jenny Guanni Qu Co-developed-by: Puranjay Mohan Signed-off-by: Puranjay Mohan Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260319211507.213816-1-daniel@iogearbox.net Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov

bpf: Fix unsound scalar forking in maybe_fork_scalars() for BPF_OR

2026-03-21T20:14:28Z

maybe_fork_scalars() is called for both BPF_AND and BPF_OR when the source operand is a constant. When dst has signed range [-1, 0], it forks the verifier state: the pushed path gets dst = 0, the current path gets dst = -1. For BPF_AND this is correct: 0 & K == 0. For BPF_OR this is wrong: 0 | K == K, not 0. The pushed path therefore tracks dst as 0 when the runtime value is K, producing an exploitable verifier/runtime divergence that allows out-of-bounds map access. Fix this by passing env->insn_idx (instead of env->insn_idx + 1) to push_stack(), so the pushed path re-executes the ALU instruction with dst = 0 and naturally computes the correct result for any opcode. Fixes: bffacdb80b93 ("bpf: Recognize special arithmetic shift in the verifier") Signed-off-by: Daniel Wade Reviewed-by: Amery Hung Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260314021521.128361-2-danjwade95@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov

bpf: Fix exception exit lock checking for subprogs

2026-03-21T19:51:44Z

process_bpf_exit_full() passes check_lock = !curframe to check_resource_leak(), which is false in cases when bpf_throw() is called from a static subprog. This makes check_resource_leak() to skip validation of active_rcu_locks, active_preempt_locks, and active_irq_id on exception exits from subprogs. At runtime bpf_throw() unwinds the stack via ORC without releasing any user-acquired locks, which may cause various issues as the result. Fix by setting check_lock = true for exception exits regardless of curframe, since exceptions bypass all intermediate frame cleanup. Update the error message prefix to "bpf_throw" for exception exits to distinguish them from normal BPF_EXIT. Fix reject_subprog_with_rcu_read_lock test which was previously passing for the wrong reason. Test program returned directly from the subprog call without closing the RCU section, so the error was triggered by the unclosed RCU lock on normal exit, not by bpf_throw. Update __msg annotations for affected tests to match the new "bpf_throw" error prefix. The spin_lock case is not affected because they are already checked [1] at the call site in do_check_insn() before bpf_throw can run. [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/kernel/bpf/verifier.c?h=v7.0-rc4#n21098 Assisted-by: Claude:claude-opus-4-6 Fixes: f18b03fabaa9 ("bpf: Implement BPF exceptions") Signed-off-by: Ihor Solodrai Acked-by: Yonghong Song Acked-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260320000809.643798-1-ihor.solodrai@linux.dev Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov

bpf: Reset register ID for BPF_END value tracking

2026-03-10T18:46:31Z

When a register undergoes a BPF_END (byte swap) operation, its scalar value is mutated in-place. If this register previously shared a scalar ID with another register (e.g., after an `r1 = r0` assignment), this tie must be broken. Currently, the verifier misses resetting `dst_reg->id` to 0 for BPF_END. Consequently, if a conditional jump checks the swapped register, the verifier incorrectly propagates the learned bounds to the linked register, leading to false confidence in the linked register's value and potentially allowing out-of-bounds memory accesses. Fix this by explicitly resetting `dst_reg->id` to 0 in the BPF_END case to break the scalar tie, similar to how BPF_NEG handles it via `__mark_reg_known`. Fixes: 9d2119984224 ("bpf: Add bitwise tracking for BPF_END") Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/AMBPR06MB108683CFEB1CB8D9E02FC95ECF17EA@AMBPR06MB10868.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com/ Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/4be25f7442a52244d0dd1abb47bc6750e57984c9.camel@gmail.com/ Reported-by: Guillaume Laporte Co-developed-by: Tianci Cao Signed-off-by: Tianci Cao Co-developed-by: Shenghao Yuan Signed-off-by: Shenghao Yuan Signed-off-by: Yazhou Tang Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260304083228.142016-2-tangyazhou@zju.edu.cn Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov

Merge tag 'bpf-fixes' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf

2026-03-07T20:20:37Z

Pull bpf fixes from Alexei Starovoitov: - Fix u32/s32 bounds when ranges cross min/max boundary (Eduard Zingerman) - Fix precision backtracking with linked registers (Eduard Zingerman) - Fix linker flags detection for resolve_btfids (Ihor Solodrai) - Fix race in update_ftrace_direct_add/del (Jiri Olsa) - Fix UAF in bpf_trampoline_link_cgroup_shim (Lang Xu) * tag 'bpf-fixes' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf: resolve_btfids: Fix linker flags detection selftests/bpf: add reproducer for spurious precision propagation through calls bpf: collect only live registers in linked regs Revert "selftests/bpf: Update reg_bound range refinement logic" selftests/bpf: test refining u32/s32 bounds when ranges cross min/max boundary bpf: Fix u32/s32 bounds when ranges cross min/max boundary bpf: Fix a UAF issue in bpf_trampoline_link_cgroup_shim ftrace: Add missing ftrace_lock to update_ftrace_direct_add/del

bpf: collect only live registers in linked regs

2026-03-07T05:49:40Z

Fix an inconsistency between func_states_equal() and collect_linked_regs(): - regsafe() uses check_ids() to verify that cached and current states have identical register id mapping. - func_states_equal() calls regsafe() only for registers computed as live by compute_live_registers(). - clean_live_states() is supposed to remove dead registers from cached states, but it can skip states belonging to an iterator-based loop. - collect_linked_regs() collects all registers sharing the same id, ignoring the marks computed by compute_live_registers(). Linked registers are stored in the state's jump history. - backtrack_insn() marks all linked registers for an instruction as precise whenever one of the linked registers is precise. The above might lead to a scenario: - There is an instruction I with register rY known to be dead at I. - Instruction I is reached via two paths: first A, then B. - On path A: - There is an id link between registers rX and rY. - Checkpoint C is created at I. - Linked register set {rX, rY} is saved to the jump history. - rX is marked as precise at I, causing both rX and rY to be marked precise at C. - On path B: - There is no id link between registers rX and rY, otherwise register states are sub-states of those in C. - Because rY is dead at I, check_ids() returns true. - Current state is considered equal to checkpoint C, propagate_precision() propagates spurious precision mark for register rY along the path B. - Depending on a program, this might hit verifier_bug() in the backtrack_insn(), e.g. if rY ∈ [r1..r5] and backtrack_insn() spots a function call. The reproducer program is in the next patch. This was hit by sched_ext scx_lavd scheduler code. Changes in tests: - verifier_scalar_ids.c selftests need modification to preserve some registers as live for __msg() checks. - exceptions_assert.c adjusted to match changes in the verifier log, R0 is dead after conditional instruction and thus does not get range. - precise.c adjusted to match changes in the verifier log, register r9 is dead after comparison and it's range is not important for test. Reported-by: Emil Tsalapatis Fixes: 0fb3cf6110a5 ("bpf: use register liveness information for func_states_equal") Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260306-linked-regs-and-propagate-precision-v1-1-18e859be570d@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov

bpf: Fix u32/s32 bounds when ranges cross min/max boundary

2026-03-07T02:16:06Z

Same as in __reg64_deduce_bounds(), refine s32/u32 ranges in __reg32_deduce_bounds() in the following situations: - s32 range crosses U32_MAX/0 boundary, positive part of the s32 range overlaps with u32 range: 0 U32_MAX | [xxxxxxxxxxxxxx u32 range xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] | |----------------------------|----------------------------| |xxxxx s32 range xxxxxxxxx] [xxxxxxx| 0 S32_MAX S32_MIN -1 - s32 range crosses U32_MAX/0 boundary, negative part of the s32 range overlaps with u32 range: 0 U32_MAX | [xxxxxxxxxxxxxx u32 range xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] | |----------------------------|----------------------------| |xxxxxxxxx] [xxxxxxxxxxxx s32 range | 0 S32_MAX S32_MIN -1 - No refinement if ranges overlap in two intervals. This helps for e.g. consider the following program: call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32]; w0 &= 0xffffffff; if w0 < 0x3 goto 1f; // on fall-through u32 range [3..U32_MAX] if w0 s> 0x1 goto 1f; // on fall-through s32 range [S32_MIN..1] if w0 s< 0x0 goto 1f; // range can be narrowed to [S32_MIN..-1] r10 = 0; 1: ...; The reg_bounds.c selftest is updated to incorporate identical logic, refinement based on non-overflowing range halves: ((x ∩ [0, smax]) ∩ (y ∩ [0, smax])) ∪ ((x ∩ [smin,-1]) ∩ (y ∩ [smin,-1])) Reported-by: Andrea Righi Reported-by: Emil Tsalapatis Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/aakqucg4vcujVwif@gpd4/T/ Reviewed-by: Emil Tsalapatis Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260306-bpf-32-bit-range-overflow-v3-1-f7f67e060a6b@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov

bpf: drop kthread_exit from noreturn_deny

2026-03-06T16:25:54Z

kthread_exit became a macro to do_exit in commit 28aaa9c39945 ("kthread: consolidate kthread exit paths to prevent use-after-free"), so there is no kthread_exit function BTF ID to resolve. Remove it from noreturn_deny to avoid resolve_btfids unresolved symbol warnings. Signed-off-by: Christian Loehle Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

bpf: Improve bounds when tnum has a single possible value

2026-02-28T00:11:50Z

We're hitting an invariant violation in Cilium that sometimes leads to BPF programs being rejected and Cilium failing to start [1]. The following extract from verifier logs shows what's happening: from 201 to 236: R1=0 R6=ctx() R7=1 R9=scalar(smin=umin=smin32=umin32=3584,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=3840,var_off=(0xe00; 0x100)) R10=fp0 236: R1=0 R6=ctx() R7=1 R9=scalar(smin=umin=smin32=umin32=3584,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=3840,var_off=(0xe00; 0x100)) R10=fp0 ; if (magic == MARK_MAGIC_HOST || magic == MARK_MAGIC_OVERLAY || magic == MARK_MAGIC_ENCRYPT) @ bpf_host.c:1337 236: (16) if w9 == 0xe00 goto pc+45 ; R9=scalar(smin=umin=smin32=umin32=3585,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=3840,var_off=(0xe00; 0x100)) 237: (16) if w9 == 0xf00 goto pc+1 verifier bug: REG INVARIANTS VIOLATION (false_reg1): range bounds violation u64=[0xe01, 0xe00] s64=[0xe01, 0xe00] u32=[0xe01, 0xe00] s32=[0xe01, 0xe00] var_off=(0xe00, 0x0) We reach instruction 236 with two possible values for R9, 0xe00 and 0xf00. This is perfectly reflected in the tnum, but of course the ranges are less accurate and cover [0xe00; 0xf00]. Taking the fallthrough path at instruction 236 allows the verifier to reduce the range to [0xe01; 0xf00]. The tnum is however not updated. With these ranges, at instruction 237, the verifier is not able to deduce that R9 is always equal to 0xf00. Hence the fallthrough pass is explored first, the verifier refines the bounds using the assumption that R9 != 0xf00, and ends up with an invariant violation. This pattern of impossible branch + bounds refinement is common to all invariant violations seen so far. The long-term solution is likely to rely on the refinement + invariant violation check to detect dead branches, as started by Eduard. To fix the current issue, we need something with less refactoring that we can backport. This patch uses the tnum_step helper introduced in the previous patch to detect the above situation. In particular, three cases are now detected in the bounds refinement: 1. The u64 range and the tnum only overlap in umin. u64: ---[xxxxxx]----- tnum: --xx----------x- 2. The u64 range and the tnum only overlap in the maximum value represented by the tnum, called tmax. u64: ---[xxxxxx]----- tnum: xx-----x-------- 3. The u64 range and the tnum only overlap in between umin (excluded) and umax. u64: ---[xxxxxx]----- tnum: xx----x-------x- To detect these three cases, we call tnum_step(tnum, umin), which returns the smallest member of the tnum greater than umin, called tnum_next here. We're in case (1) if umin is part of the tnum and tnum_next is greater than umax. We're in case (2) if umin is not part of the tnum and tnum_next is equal to tmax. Finally, we're in case (3) if umin is not part of the tnum, tnum_next is inferior or equal to umax, and calling tnum_step a second time gives us a value past umax. This change implements these three cases. With it, the above bytecode looks as follows: 0: (85) call bpf_get_prandom_u32#7 ; R0=scalar() 1: (47) r0 |= 3584 ; R0=scalar(smin=0x8000000000000e00,umin=umin32=3584,smin32=0x80000e00,var_off=(0xe00; 0xfffffffffffff1ff)) 2: (57) r0 &= 3840 ; R0=scalar(smin=umin=smin32=umin32=3584,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=3840,var_off=(0xe00; 0x100)) 3: (15) if r0 == 0xe00 goto pc+2 ; R0=3840 4: (15) if r0 == 0xf00 goto pc+1 4: R0=3840 6: (95) exit In addition to the new selftests, this change was also verified with Agni [3]. For the record, the raw SMT is available at [4]. The property it verifies is that: If a concrete value x is contained in all input abstract values, after __update_reg_bounds, it will continue to be contained in all output abstract values. Link: https://github.com/cilium/cilium/issues/44216 [1] Link: https://pchaigno.github.io/test-verifier-complexity.html [2] Link: https://github.com/bpfverif/agni [3] Link: https://pastebin.com/raw/naCfaqNx [4] Fixes: 0df1a55afa83 ("bpf: Warn on internal verifier errors") Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman Tested-by: Marco Schirrmeister Co-developed-by: Harishankar Vishwanathan Signed-off-by: Harishankar Vishwanathan Signed-off-by: Paul Chaignon Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/ef254c4f68be19bd393d450188946821c588565d.1772225741.git.paul.chaignon@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov

Convert 'alloc_obj' family to use the new default GFP_KERNEL argument

2026-02-22T01:09:51Z

This was done entirely with mindless brute force, using git grep -l '\