Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next v1 1/1] bpf: Enable JIT hardening by default when x86_64 CFI is enabled

On Sun, Aug 09, 2026 at 10:30:35AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 12:19:32PM -0700, Jennifer Miller wrote:
> > Initializes bpf_jit_harden to 1 if x86_64 CFI is enabled. Prevents the
> > misuse of BPF JIT code to craft CFI signatures or Endbr64 instructions
> > by enabling constant blinding for JITted BPF code from unprivileged
> > users.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jennifer Miller <[email protected]>
> > ---
> >  kernel/bpf/core.c | 6 +++++-
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> > index 47fe047ad30b..ed22b90c6e4e 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> > @@ -548,7 +548,11 @@ void bpf_prog_kallsyms_del_all(struct bpf_prog *fp)
> >  /* All BPF JIT sysctl knobs here. */
> >  int bpf_jit_enable   __read_mostly = IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_BPF_JIT_DEFAULT_ON);
> >  int bpf_jit_kallsyms __read_mostly = IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_BPF_JIT_DEFAULT_ON);
> > -int bpf_jit_harden   __read_mostly;
> > +/* Enable hardening by default when x86_64 CFI is enabled to prevent CFI
> > + * hashes and endbr64 instructions from being crafted.
> > + */
> > +int bpf_jit_harden   __read_mostly = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_64) &&
> > +					IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CFI);
> 
> Why not just do this for all CONFIG_CFI?

Additionally; does it make sense to add an arch hook to
bpf_jit_blind_constant() / bpg_jit_blind_insn() such that architectures
can blacklist certain values?

Because as is, the whole thing *can* still generate an ENBBR by sheer
accident.

I'm thinking something simple like:

	while (imm_rnd ^ imm == gen_endbr() || imm_rnd == gen_endbr())
		imm_rnd = get_random_u32();

should do.