Re: [PATCH bpf-next v6 06/10] bpf: Add verifier support for 16-byte returns in R0:R2

On 8/16/26 9:42 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
> - [Medium] The newly added support for kfuncs returning structs by value is mathematically unreachable.
> --
>
> --- Patch [6]: [PATCH bpf-next v6 06/10] bpf: Add verifier support for 16-byte returns in R0:R2 ---
> commit 438f13b526c411cf77d7536a3436a0cc4625dbe4
> Author: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
>
> bpf: Add verifier support for 16-byte returns in R0:R2
>
> This patch adds BPF verifier support for handling 16-byte returns in the
> R0:R2 register pair, utilizing LLVM 23 capabilities. It models this
> register pair at calls to global/static subprograms and kfuncs, allowing
> kfuncs to return structs composed of scalars.
>
> Link: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/190894
> Link: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/206876
>
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> [ ... ]
>
>> @@ -13967,10 +13997,25 @@ static int check_kfunc_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn,
>>   	}
>>   
>>   	if (btf_type_is_scalar(t)) {
>> -		mark_reg_unknown(env, regs, BPF_REG_0);
>> +		mark_kfunc_ret_regs(env, regs, t->size);
>>   		if (meta.btf == btf_vmlinux && (meta.func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_res_spin_lock] ||
>>   		    meta.func_id == special_kfunc_list[KF_bpf_res_spin_lock_irqsave]))
>>   			__mark_reg_const_zero(env, &regs[BPF_REG_0]);
>> +	} else if (btf_type_is_struct(t)) {
> [Severity: Medium]
> Is this newly added code for kfunc struct returns actually reachable
> during program load?
>
> Looking at how kfuncs are processed earlier in the verifier,
> bpf_add_kfunc_call() calls btf_distill_func_proto(), which appears to
> still explicitly reject struct return types:
>
> kernel/bpf/btf.c:btf_distill_func_proto() {
>      ...
>      if (ret < 0 || btf_type_is_struct(t)) {
>          bpf_log(log,
>              "The function %s return type %s is unsupported.\n",
>              tname, btf_type_str(t));
>          return -EINVAL;
>      }
>      ...
> }
>
> Since btf_distill_func_proto() is called during program load before
> check_kfunc_call() is ever reached, won't any BPF program calling a
> struct-returning kfunc be unconditionally rejected, making this new
> branch dead code?

The next patch "bpf: Enable aggregate return types up to 16 bytes"
will enable to have successful prog load.

>
>> +		/*
>> +		 * The returned struct comes back as raw register bits modeled
>> +		 * as an unknown scalar, so it must contain only scalars:
>> +		 * otherwise a pointer field would be laundered into a scalar
>> +		 * and escape provenance and reference tracking.
>> +		 */
>> +		if (!__btf_type_is_scalar_struct(env, desc_btf, t, 0)) {
>> +			verbose(env,
>> +				"kernel function %s returns %s %s that is not composed of scalars\n",
>> +				func_name, btf_type_str(t),
>> +				btf_name_by_offset(desc_btf, t->name_off));
>> +			return -EINVAL;
>> +		}
>> +		mark_kfunc_ret_regs(env, regs, t->size);
>>   	} else if (btf_type_is_ptr(t)) {
>>   		ptr_type = btf_type_skip_modifiers(desc_btf, t->type, &ptr_type_id);
> [ ... ]
>