Re: [PATCHv5 bpf-next 10/28] bpf: Add multi tracing attach types

On Sat, Apr 18, 2026 at 04:09:08AM +0000, [email protected] wrote:
> Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s):
> - [High] FENTRY_MULTI and FEXIT_MULTI programs can bypass verifier bounds checks and read out-of-bounds kernel stack memory by directly accessing the `ctx` array.
> - [High] bpf_multi_func lacks the __used attribute, causing it to be optimized out by Clang LTO, which completely breaks the feature at runtime.
> --
> 
> Note: The format of this review has been altered due to system recitation
> restrictions. Direct quoting of the patch diff has been omitted, and the
> findings are provided as a free-form summary.
> 
> commit ca84efa8f86b1acb8cf0bd98e80446dbd7c92e12
> Author: Jiri Olsa <[email protected]>
> Subject: bpf: Add multi tracing attach types
> 
> This commit introduces new multi-tracing attach types BPF_TRACE_FENTRY_MULTI
> and BPF_TRACE_FEXIT_MULTI, along with base verifier support. It uses a dummy
> function bpf_multi_func for initial verification before the specific link
> attachment happens.
> 
> Can this approach lead to out-of-bounds kernel stack memory reads? 
> 
> Since the initial verification is done against bpf_multi_func, which is 
> defined with 6 arguments, the verifier will statically permit direct context 
> accesses up to ctx[5] (and ctx[6] for the return value in FEXIT_MULTI). 
> However, when the program is attached to a real function at runtime, the 
> trampoline allocates the context array on the kernel stack based on the 
> target function's actual argument count. 
> 
> If the target function has fewer than 6 arguments, would reading ctx[5] read 
> past the allocated context array and leak memory from the caller's stack 
> frame? Additionally, would reading ctx[6] for the return value return 
> unrelated stack memory instead of the actual return value, since the 
> trampoline places the return value dynamically? Does the verifier need to 
> explicitly reject direct memory accesses to the context array for these 
> program types and enforce the use of bounds-checked helpers like 
> bpf_get_func_arg()?

ok, seems like we need to disable the direct access

> 
> Is it possible for Clang LTO to optimize out the bpf_multi_func function 
> entirely? 
> 
> The dummy function is defined without a __used or __attribute__((retain)) 
> attribute, and the BTF_ID_LIST_GLOBAL_SINGLE macro only embeds the function 
> name in an inline assembly section without generating a C-level reference. 
> In kernel builds with Link Time Optimization enabled, could the compiler 
> eliminate this function as dead code?
> 
> If this occurs, pahole would not generate BTF data for it, leaving the BTF 
> ID as 0. Would this result in the verifier's bpf_check_attach_target() 
> unconditionally rejecting multi-tracing program loads by throwing a missing 
> btf_id error? Should a __used attribute be added to the function definition 
> to prevent this?

I did not check with LTO, will check and probably add that attribute

jirka

> 
> -- 
> Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=1