linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/1] bpf: fix WARNING in __bpf_prog_ret0

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f5746ef8-7334-455e-b7c3-ef1563fbc239@linux.dev>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 10:55:11 -0700
From: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>
To: Felix Fietkau <nbd@....name>, KaFai Wan <mannkafai@...il.com>,
 ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, john.fastabend@...il.com,
 andrii@...nel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev, eddyz87@...il.com, song@...nel.org,
 kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...ichev.me, haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
 bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/1] bpf: fix WARNING in __bpf_prog_ret0_warn
 when jit failed



On 7/25/25 10:30 AM, Yonghong Song wrote:
>
> On 7/22/25 6:28 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 26.05.25 15:33, KaFai Wan wrote:
>>> syzkaller reported an issue:
>>>
>>> WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 217 at kernel/bpf/core.c:2357 
>>> __bpf_prog_ret0_warn+0xa/0x20 kernel/bpf/core.c:2357
>>> Modules linked in:
>>> CPU: 3 UID: 0 PID: 217 Comm: kworker/u32:6 Not tainted 
>>> 6.15.0-rc4-syzkaller-00040-g8bac8898fe39 #0 PREEMPT(full)
>>> Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 
>>> 1.16.3-debian-1.16.3-2~bpo12+1 04/01/2014
>>> Workqueue: ipv6_addrconf addrconf_dad_work
>>> RIP: 0010:__bpf_prog_ret0_warn+0xa/0x20 kernel/bpf/core.c:2357
>>> RSP: 0018:ffffc900031f6c18 EFLAGS: 00010293
>>> RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffffc9000006e000 RCX: 1ffff9200000dc06
>>> RDX: ffff8880234ba440 RSI: ffffffff81ca6979 RDI: ffff888031e93040
>>> RBP: ffffc900031f6cb8 R08: 0000000000000001 R09: 0000000000000000
>>> R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffff88802b61e010
>>> R13: ffff888031e93040 R14: 00000000000000a0 R15: ffff88802c3d4800
>>> FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff8880d6ce2000(0000) 
>>> knlGS:0000000000000000
>>> CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
>>> CR2: 000055557b6d2ca8 CR3: 000000002473e000 CR4: 0000000000352ef0
>>> DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
>>> DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
>>> Call Trace:
>>>   <TASK>
>>>   bpf_dispatcher_nop_func include/linux/bpf.h:1316 [inline]
>>>   __bpf_prog_run include/linux/filter.h:718 [inline]
>>>   bpf_prog_run include/linux/filter.h:725 [inline]
>>>   cls_bpf_classify+0x74a/0x1110 net/sched/cls_bpf.c:105
>>>   ...
>>>
>>> When creating bpf program, 'fp->jit_requested' depends on 
>>> bpf_jit_enable.
>>> Currently the value of bpf_jit_enable is available from 0 to 2, 0 
>>> means use
>>> interpreter and not jit, 1 and 2 means need to jit. When
>>> CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON is enabled, bpf_jit_enable is permanently set
>>> to 1, when it's not set or disabled, we can set bpf_jit_enable via 
>>> proc.
>>>
>>> This issue is triggered because of CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON is not set
>>> and bpf_jit_enable is set to 1, causing the arch to attempt JIT the 
>>> prog,
>>> but jit failed due to FAULT_INJECTION. As a result, incorrectly
>>> treats the program as valid, when the program runs it calls
>>> `__bpf_prog_ret0_warn` and triggers the WARN_ON_ONCE(1).
>>>
>>> Reported-by: syzbot+0903f6d7f285e41cdf10@...kaller.appspotmail.com
>>> Closes: 
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/6816e34e.a70a0220.254cdc.002c.GAE@google.com 
>>>
>>> Fixes: fa9dd599b4da ("bpf: get rid of pure_initcall dependency to 
>>> enable jits")
>>> Signed-off-by: KaFai Wan <mannkafai@...il.com>
>>
>> I think this patch may have caused a regression in configurations 
>> with CONFIG_BPF_JIT_DEFAULT_ON=y when programs can't be JITed. 
>> Attaching the program fails with error -ENOTSUPP.
>
> Could you explain why there is an issue here?
> CONFIG_BPF_JIT_DEFAULT_ON=y but prog cannot be jit'ed. So the end 
> result is to return -ENOTSUPP.
> It looks okay to me since the jit is required but jit failed, the only 
> choice for the kernel
> is to return an error.

BTW, you mentioned programs cannot be jited. Could you explain why programs cannot be jitted?
It would be strange that a program cannot be jitted but can be interpreted.

>
>>
>> Please see https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/issues/19405 for more 
>> information.
>>
>> - Felix
>
>