linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 00/17] bpf: Introduce proof-based verifier enhancement

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: <CAADnVQ+AsvqZZOPmga0VsavQNt0Qc4Gbh9+KPSkaxoOsstELxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2025 18:27:26 -0800
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Hao Sun <sunhao.th@...il.com>
Cc: bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, 
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Eduard <eddyz87@...il.com>, 
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, 
	Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, 
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Hao Sun <hao.sun@....ethz.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/17] bpf: Introduce proof-based verifier enhancement

On Thu, Nov 6, 2025 at 4:53 AM Hao Sun <sunhao.th@...il.com> wrote:
> this enhancement, 403 of 512 previously rejected programs can be verified. T

This is not a review yet. Small question first.

Your github repo has ~1500 bpf object files,
while here and in the paper you mention 512.
What's the difference?

I tried to categorize failures from many of these ~1500
and lots of them are similar.

In paper you mention 3 examples:
- ptr + str_pos, with size MAX - str_pos
- s>>= 31
- &= 0xffff

Did you categorize all 1500 failures into categories?

What are the specific gaps in the verifier beyond these 3 cases ?