| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <3392533.aeNJFYEL58@7940hx>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2026 09:29:20 +0800
From: Menglong Dong <menglong.dong@...ux.dev>
To: bpf@...r.kernel.org, Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@...ux.dev>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@...nel.org>,
Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...weicloud.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@...il.com>,
Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@...ux.dev>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-patches-bot@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/3] bpf: Add bpf_arch_supports_fsession()
On 2026/1/28 23:01 Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@...ux.dev> write:
> fsession programs can currently be loaded on architectures that do not
> implement fsession support, which leads to runtime errors instead of a
> clean verifier rejection.
>
> For example, running fsession selftests on arm64 before fsession support
> is added results in:
>
> test_fsession_basic:PASS:fsession_test__open_and_load 0 nsec
> test_fsession_basic:PASS:fsession_attach 0 nsec
> check_result:FAIL:test_run_opts err unexpected error: -14 (errno 14)
>
> Introduce bpf_arch_supports_fsession() to explicitly gate fsession usage
> based on architecture support. Architectures without fsession support
> will now fail program load with -EOPNOTSUPP, allowing selftests to skip
> cleanly instead of errors at runtime.
>
> x86 declares fsession support, while the default implementation returns
> false.
>
> Fixes: 2d419c44658f ("bpf: add fsession support")
I were wondering how this problem happen, as I remember that
I added such checking. When I look back, I found that the checking
is lost during v3->v4. I recalled that the AI warned me about this
part, but I thought that checking exists in my mind :/
It seems that we can't ignore the AI's warning easily. It mostly
make sense.
> Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@...ux.dev>
> ---
> arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 5 +++
> include/linux/filter.h | 1 +
> kernel/bpf/core.c | 5 +++
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 3 ++
> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fsession_test.c | 32 ++++++++++++++-----
> 5 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> index 5a075e06cf45..070ba80e39d7 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> @@ -4112,3 +4112,8 @@ bool bpf_jit_supports_timed_may_goto(void)
> {
> return true;
> }
> +
> +bool bpf_jit_supports_fsession(void)
> +{
> + return true;
> +}
> diff --git a/include/linux/filter.h b/include/linux/filter.h
> index fd54fed8f95f..4e1cb4f91f49 100644
> --- a/include/linux/filter.h
> +++ b/include/linux/filter.h
> @@ -1167,6 +1167,7 @@ bool bpf_jit_supports_arena(void);
> bool bpf_jit_supports_insn(struct bpf_insn *insn, bool in_arena);
> bool bpf_jit_supports_private_stack(void);
> bool bpf_jit_supports_timed_may_goto(void);
> +bool bpf_jit_supports_fsession(void);
> u64 bpf_arch_uaddress_limit(void);
> void arch_bpf_stack_walk(bool (*consume_fn)(void *cookie, u64 ip, u64 sp, u64 bp), void *cookie);
> u64 arch_bpf_timed_may_goto(void);
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> index e0b8a8a5aaa9..3b1eb632bf7c 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> @@ -3142,6 +3142,11 @@ bool __weak bpf_jit_supports_insn(struct bpf_insn *insn, bool in_arena)
> return false;
> }
>
> +bool __weak bpf_jit_supports_fsession(void)
> +{
> + return false;
> +}
> +
> u64 __weak bpf_arch_uaddress_limit(void)
> {
> #if defined(CONFIG_64BIT) && defined(CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_NON_OVERLAPPING_ADDRESS_SPACE)
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index c2f2650db9fd..6f867ebf78d1 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -24872,6 +24872,9 @@ int bpf_check_attach_target(struct bpf_verifier_log *log,
> case BPF_TRACE_FENTRY:
> case BPF_TRACE_FEXIT:
> case BPF_TRACE_FSESSION:
> + if (prog->expected_attach_type == BPF_TRACE_FSESSION &&
> + !bpf_jit_supports_fsession())
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> if (!btf_type_is_func(t)) {
> bpf_log(log, "attach_btf_id %u is not a function\n",
> btf_id);
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fsession_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fsession_test.c
> index 0c4b428e1cee..a299aeb8cc2e 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fsession_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fsession_test.c
> @@ -29,8 +29,16 @@ static void test_fsession_basic(void)
> struct fsession_test *skel = NULL;
> int err;
>
> - skel = fsession_test__open_and_load();
> - if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "fsession_test__open_and_load"))
> + skel = fsession_test__open();
> + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "fsession_test__open"))
> + return;
> +
> + err = fsession_test__load(skel);
> + if (err == -EOPNOTSUPP) {
> + test__skip();
> + goto cleanup;
> + }
> + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "fsession_test__load"))
> goto cleanup;
>
> err = fsession_test__attach(skel);
> @@ -47,8 +55,16 @@ static void test_fsession_reattach(void)
> struct fsession_test *skel = NULL;
> int err;
>
> - skel = fsession_test__open_and_load();
> - if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "fsession_test__open_and_load"))
> + skel = fsession_test__open();
> + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "fsession_test__open"))
> + return;
> +
> + err = fsession_test__load(skel);
> + if (err == -EOPNOTSUPP) {
> + test__skip();
> + goto cleanup;
> + }
> + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "fsession_test__load"))
> goto cleanup;
>
> /* first attach */
> @@ -94,6 +110,10 @@ static void test_fsession_cookie(void)
> bpf_program__set_autoload(skel->progs.test6, false);
>
> err = fsession_test__load(skel);
> + if (err == -EOPNOTSUPP) {
> + test__skip();
> + goto cleanup;
> + }
> if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "fsession_test__load"))
> goto cleanup;
>
> @@ -111,10 +131,6 @@ static void test_fsession_cookie(void)
>
> void test_fsession_test(void)
> {
> -#if !defined(__x86_64__)
> - test__skip();
> - return;
> -#endif
Ah, I see you enabled the testing for arm64 in this patch. Maybe
we can move this part to the 3rd patch, or split it out to another
patch?
TBH, I prefer the previous implement. In this way, the CI can
still pass if x86_64 or arm64 return -EOPNOTSUPP, right?
Maybe you can test the not-supported case stand alone, such
as:
#if !defined(__x86_64__)
test__fsession_not_support();
return;
#endif
wdyt?
Thanks!
Menglong Dong
> if (test__start_subtest("fsession_test"))
> test_fsession_basic();
> if (test__start_subtest("fsession_reattach"))
> --
> 2.52.0
>
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists