Message-ID: <541b7765-28eb-4d1f-9409-863db6798395@linux.dev>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 08:26:01 -0700
From: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>
To: Sahil Chandna <chandna.sahil@...il.com>
Cc: syzbot+b0cff308140f79a9c4cb@...kaller.appspotmail.com, andrii@...nel.org,
 ast@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
 eddyz87@...il.com, haoluo@...gle.com, john.fastabend@...il.com,
 jolsa@...nel.org, kpsingh@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 listout@...tout.xyz, martin.lau@...ux.dev, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 sdf@...ichev.me, song@...nel.org, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
 linux-rt-devel@...ts.linux.dev, bigeasy@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [syzbot] [bpf?] WARNING in bpf_bprintf_prepare (3)



On 10/29/25 4:22 AM, Sahil Chandna wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 08:45:25PM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/26/25 1:05 PM, Sahil Chandna wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 12:56:25PM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/22/25 11:40 AM, Sahil Chandna wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 09:57:22AM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/20/25 2:08 PM, syzbot wrote:
>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> syzbot found the following issue on:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HEAD commit:    a1e83d4c0361 selftests/bpf: Fix redefinition of 
>>>>>>> 'off' as d..
>>>>>>> git tree:       bpf
>>>>>>> console output: 
>>>>>>> https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=12d21de2580000
>>>>>>> kernel config: 
>>>>>>> https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=9ad7b090a18654a7
>>>>>>> dashboard link: 
>>>>>>> https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=b0cff308140f79a9c4cb
>>>>>>> compiler:       Debian clang version 20.1.8 
>>>>>>> (++20250708063551+0c9f909b7976-1~exp1~20250708183702.136), 
>>>>>>> Debian LLD 20.1.8
>>>>>>> syz repro: 
>>>>>>> https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.syz?x=160cf542580000
>>>>>>> C reproducer: 
>>>>>>> https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.c?x=128d5c58580000
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Downloadable assets:
>>>>>>> disk image: 
>>>>>>> https://storage.googleapis.com/syzbot-assets/2f6a7a0cd1b7/disk-a1e83d4c.raw.xz
>>>>>>> vmlinux: 
>>>>>>> https://storage.googleapis.com/syzbot-assets/873984cfc71e/vmlinux-a1e83d4c.xz
>>>>>>> kernel image: 
>>>>>>> https://storage.googleapis.com/syzbot-assets/16711d84070c/bzImage-a1e83d4c.xz
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The issue was bisected to:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> commit 7c33e97a6ef5d84e98b892c3e00c6d1678d20395
>>>>>>> Author: Sahil Chandna <chandna.sahil@...il.com>
>>>>>>> Date:   Tue Oct 14 18:56:35 2025 +0000
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     bpf: Do not disable preemption in bpf_test_run().
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> bisection log: 
>>>>>>> https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/bisect.txt?x=172fe492580000
>>>>>>> final oops: 
>>>>>>> https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/report.txt?x=14afe492580000
>>>>>>> console output: 
>>>>>>> https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=10afe492580000
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to 
>>>>>>> the commit:
>>>>>>> Reported-by: syzbot+b0cff308140f79a9c4cb@...kaller.appspotmail.com
>>>>>>> Fixes: 7c33e97a6ef5 ("bpf: Do not disable preemption in 
>>>>>>> bpf_test_run().")
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------------[ cut here ]------------
>>>>>>> WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 6145 at kernel/bpf/helpers.c:781 
>>>>>>> bpf_try_get_buffers kernel/bpf/helpers.c:781 [inline]
>>>>>>> WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 6145 at kernel/bpf/helpers.c:781 
>>>>>>> bpf_bprintf_prepare+0x12cf/0x13a0 kernel/bpf/helpers.c:834
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay, the warning is due to the following WARN_ON_ONCE:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct 
>>>>>> bpf_bprintf_buffers[MAX_BPRINTF_NEST_LEVEL], bpf_bprintf_bufs);
>>>>>> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, bpf_bprintf_nest_level);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int bpf_try_get_buffers(struct bpf_bprintf_buffers **bufs)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>        int nest_level;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        nest_level = this_cpu_inc_return(bpf_bprintf_nest_level);
>>>>>>        if (WARN_ON_ONCE(nest_level > MAX_BPRINTF_NEST_LEVEL)) {
>>>>>>                this_cpu_dec(bpf_bprintf_nest_level);
>>>>>>                return -EBUSY;
>>>>>>        }
>>>>>>        *bufs = this_cpu_ptr(&bpf_bprintf_bufs[nest_level - 1]);
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        return 0;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Basically without preempt disable, at process level, it is possible
>>>>>> more than one process may trying to take bpf_bprintf_buffers.
>>>>>> Adding softirq and nmi, it is totally likely to have more than 3
>>>>>> level for buffers. Also, more than one process with 
>>>>>> bpf_bprintf_buffers
>>>>>> will cause problem in releasing buffers, so we need to have
>>>>>> preempt_disable surrounding bpf_try_get_buffers() and
>>>>>> bpf_put_buffers().
>>>>> Right, but using preempt_disable() may impact builds with
>>>>> CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT=y, similar to bug[1]? Do you think local_lock() 
>>>>> could be used here
>>>>
>>>> We should be okay. for all the kfuncs/helpers I mentioned below,
>>>> with the help of AI, I didn't find any spin_lock in the code path
>>>> and all these helpers although they try to *print* some contents,
>>>> but the kfuncs/helpers itself is only to deal with buffers and
>>>> actual print will happen asynchronously.
>>>>
>>>>> as nest level is per cpu variable and local lock semantics can work
>>>>> for both RT and non rt builds ?
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure about local_lock() in RT as for RT, local_lock() could
>>>> be nested and the release may not in proper order. See
>>>>  https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.8/locking/locktypes.html
>>>>
>>>>  local_lock is not suitable to protect against preemption or 
>>>> interrupts on a
>>>>  PREEMPT_RT kernel due to the PREEMPT_RT specific spinlock_t 
>>>> semantics.
>>>>
>>>> So I suggest to stick to preempt_disable/enable approach.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are some kfuncs/helpers need such preempt_disable
>>>>>> protection, e.g. bpf_stream_printk, bpf_snprintf,
>>>>>> bpf_trace_printk, bpf_trace_vprintk, bpf_seq_printf.
>>>>>> But please double check.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, thanks!
>>>
>>> Since these helpers eventually call bpf_bprintf_prepare(),
>>> I figured adding protection around bpf_try_get_buffers(),
>>> which triggers the original warning, should be sufficient.
>>> I tried a few approaches to address the warning as below :
>>>
>>> 1. preempt_disable() / preempt_enable() around 
>>> bpf_prog_run_pin_on_cpu()
>>> diff --git a/net/core/flow_dissector.c b/net/core/flow_dissector.c
>>> index 1b61bb25ba0e..6a128179a26f 100644
>>> --- a/net/core/flow_dissector.c
>>> +++ b/net/core/flow_dissector.c
>>> @@ -1021,7 +1021,9 @@ u32 bpf_flow_dissect(struct bpf_prog *prog, 
>>> struct bpf_flow_dissector *ctx,
>>>                (int)FLOW_DISSECTOR_F_STOP_AT_ENCAP);
>>>       flow_keys->flags = flags;
>>>
>>> +    preempt_disable();
>>>       result = bpf_prog_run_pin_on_cpu(prog, ctx);
>>> +    preempt_enable();
>>>
>>>       flow_keys->nhoff = clamp_t(u16, flow_keys->nhoff, nhoff, hlen);
>>>       flow_keys->thoff = clamp_t(u16, flow_keys->thoff,
>>> This fixes the original WARN_ON in both PREEMPT_FULL and RT builds.
>>> However, when tested with the syz reproducer of the original bug 
>>> [1], it
>>> still triggers the expected 
>>> DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(this_cpu_read(softirq_ctrl.cnt)) warning from 
>>> __local_bh_disable_ip(), due to the preempt_disable() interacting 
>>> with RT spinlock semantics.
>>> [1] [https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=1f1fbecb9413cdbfbef8
>>> So this approach avoids the buffer nesting issue, but re-introduces 
>>> the following issue:
>>> [  363.968103][T21257] 
>>> DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(this_cpu_read(softirq_ctrl.cnt))
>>> [  363.968922][T21257] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 21257 at 
>>> kernel/softirq.c:176 __local_bh_disable_ip+0x3d9/0x540
>>> [  363.969046][T21257] Modules linked in:
>>> [  363.969176][T21257] Call Trace:
>>> [  363.969181][T21257]  <TASK>
>>> [  363.969186][T21257]  ? __local_bh_disable_ip+0xa1/0x540
>>> [  363.969197][T21257]  ? sock_map_delete_elem+0xa2/0x170
>>> [  363.969209][T21257]  ? preempt_schedule_common+0x83/0xd0
>>> [  363.969252][T21257]  ? rt_spin_unlock+0x161/0x200
>>> [  363.969269][T21257]  sock_map_delete_elem+0xaf/0x170
>>> [  363.969280][T21257]  bpf_prog_464bc2be3fc7c272+0x43/0x47
>>> [  363.969289][T21257]  bpf_flow_dissect+0x22b/0x750
>>> [  363.969299][T21257] bpf_prog_test_run_flow_dissector+0x37c/0x5c0
>>>
>>> 2. preempt_disable() inside bpf_try_get_buffers() and bpf_put_buffers()
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
>>> index 8eb117c52817..bc8630833a94 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
>>> @@ -777,12 +777,14 @@ int bpf_try_get_buffers(struct 
>>> bpf_bprintf_buffers **bufs)
>>>  {
>>>         int nest_level;
>>>
>>> +       preempt_disable();
>>>         nest_level = this_cpu_inc_return(bpf_bprintf_nest_level);
>>>         if (WARN_ON_ONCE(nest_level > MAX_BPRINTF_NEST_LEVEL)) {
>>>                 this_cpu_dec(bpf_bprintf_nest_level);
>>>                 return -EBUSY;
>>>         }
>>>         *bufs = this_cpu_ptr(&bpf_bprintf_bufs[nest_level - 1]);
>>> +       preempt_enable();
>>>
>>>         return 0;
>>>  }
>>> @@ -791,7 +793,10 @@ void bpf_put_buffers(void)
>>>  {
>>>         if (WARN_ON_ONCE(this_cpu_read(bpf_bprintf_nest_level) == 0))
>>>                 return;
>>> +
>>> +       preempt_disable();
>>>         this_cpu_dec(bpf_bprintf_nest_level);
>>> +       preempt_enable();
>>>  }
>>> This *still* reproduces the original syz issue, so the protection 
>>> needs to be placed around the entire program run, not inside the 
>>> helper itself as
>>> in above experiment.
>>
>> This does not work. See my earlier suggestions.
>>
>>> Basically without preempt disable, at process level, it is possible
>>> more than one process may trying to take bpf_bprintf_buffers.
>>> Adding softirq and nmi, it is totally likely to have more than 3
>>> level for buffers. Also, more than one process with bpf_bprintf_buffers
>>> will cause problem in releasing buffers, so we need to have
>>> preempt_disable surrounding bpf_try_get_buffers() and
>>> bpf_put_buffers().
>>
>> That is,
>>  preempt_disable();
>>  ...
>>  bpf_try_get_buffers()
>>  ...
>>  bpf_put_buffers()
>>  ...
>>  preempt_enable();
>>
>>>
>>> 3. Using a per-CPU local_lock
>>> Finally, I tested with a per-CPU local_lock around 
>>> bpf_prog_run_pin_on_cpu():
>>> +struct bpf_cpu_lock {
>>> +    local_lock_t lock;
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct bpf_cpu_lock, bpf_cpu_lock) = {
>>> +    .lock = INIT_LOCAL_LOCK(),
>>> +};
>>> @@ -1021,7 +1030,9 @@ u32 bpf_flow_dissect(struct bpf_prog *prog, 
>>> struct bpf_flow_dissector *ctx,
>>>                      (int)FLOW_DISSECTOR_F_STOP_AT_ENCAP);
>>>         flow_keys->flags = flags;
>>>
>>> +       local_lock(&bpf_cpu_lock.lock);
>>>         result = bpf_prog_run_pin_on_cpu(prog, ctx);
>>> +       local_unlock(&bpf_cpu_lock.lock);
>>>
>>> This approach avoid the warning on both RT and non-RT builds, with 
>>> both the syz reproducer. The intention of introducing the per-CPU 
>>> local_lock is to maintain consistent per-CPU execution semantics 
>>> between RT and non-RT kernels.
>>> On non-RT builds, local_lock maps to preempt_disable()/enable(),
>>> which provides the same semantics as before.
>>> On RT builds, it maps to an RT-safe per-CPU spinlock, avoiding the
>>> softirq_ctrl.cnt issue.
>>
>> This should work, but local lock disable interrupts which could have
>> negative side effects on the system. We don't want this.
>> That is the reason we have 3 nested level for bpf_bprintf_buffers.
>>
>> Please try my above preempt_disalbe/enable() solution.
>>
> I tried following patch with reproducer from both syzbot [1] and [2]
> and issue *did not reproduce* with them.
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> index 8eb117c52817..4be6dde89d39 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> @@ -777,9 +777,11 @@ int bpf_try_get_buffers(struct 
> bpf_bprintf_buffers **bufs)
>  {
>         int nest_level;
>
> +       preempt_disable();
>         nest_level = this_cpu_inc_return(bpf_bprintf_nest_level);
>         if (WARN_ON_ONCE(nest_level > MAX_BPRINTF_NEST_LEVEL)) {
>                 this_cpu_dec(bpf_bprintf_nest_level);
> +               preempt_enable();
>                 return -EBUSY;
>         }
>         *bufs = this_cpu_ptr(&bpf_bprintf_bufs[nest_level - 1]);
> @@ -792,6 +794,7 @@ void bpf_put_buffers(void)
>         if (WARN_ON_ONCE(this_cpu_read(bpf_bprintf_nest_level) == 0))

For completeness, we need to add preempt_enable() here as well.

> return;
>         this_cpu_dec(bpf_bprintf_nest_level);
> +       preempt_enable();
>  }
>
> [1] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=1f1fbecb9413cdbfbef8
> [2] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=b0cff308140f79a9c4cb
>>>
>>> Let me know if you’d like me to run some more experiments on this.
>>
> Shall I submit a patch with your suggested changes ?

Please. The change looks good to me.

>
> Regards,
> Sahil

Powered by blists - more mailing lists