Skip to contentSkip to conversation

bpf: fix REG INVARIANTS VIOLATION on speculative pointer arithmetic

PATCH In review Jiayuan Chen 6 participants 8 messages Aug 19 – Aug 20

Subsystems (4)
lore
Share & tools
lore
#0 lore raw

PATCH 1/2 bpf: fix REG INVARIANTS VIOLATION on speculative pointer arithmetic

Take the following unprivileged program as an example:

	r0 = bpf_map_lookup_elem(...)	/* PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE, offset 0 */
	...
	14: r0 += r1			/* r1 is a bounded scalar */
	15: r9 = r0

Loading it triggers a verifier warning from reg_bounds_sanity_check():

	verifier bug: REG INVARIANTS VIOLATION (alu): const subreg tnum out
	of sync with range bounds r64={.base=0x0, .size=0x0}
	r32={.base=0x0, .size=0xffffffff} var_off=(0x0, 0x0)

What happens:

1. Processing insn 14 (r0 += r1) in adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(), the new offset is computed into dst_reg's var_off and 32/64-bit ranges.

2. Because pointer registers do not track 32-bit subregister bounds, __mark_reg32_unbounded() first sets r32 to the full range; r32 is re-derived from the offset at the end of the function by reg_bounds_sync().

3. On the unprivileged path, sanitize_ptr_alu() is called and, via sanitize_speculative_path() -> push_stack(), snapshots the current register state and schedules the next instruction (insn 15) to be verified directly as a speculative path.

4. That snapshot is taken between step 2 and the final reg_bounds_sync():
at this point dst_reg's var_off still holds the (const) original offset while r32 has just been blanked to the full range, i.e. the two are out of sync. When the speculative path later verifies insn 15 (r9 = r0), the inconsistent state reaches reg_bounds_sanity_check() and trips the warning.

var_off and the 32-bit range must always be consistent. There are two ways to keep the snapshot consistent:

1. sync var_off and r32 before the snapshot so they match, or
2. leave r32 at its original (already consistent) value and blank it only after the snapshot.

The whole point of sanitize_ptr_alu() is to insert a harmless masking sequence that keeps the access in bounds under speculation, so the state it snapshots should faithfully represent that. Take approach 2: move __mark_reg32_unbounded() to after sanitize_ptr_alu(), so the speculative snapshot keeps the pointer's original, consistent r32. The non-speculative path is unchanged: r32 is still blanked before the offset is applied and re-derived by reg_bounds_sync().

Fixes 5f99f312bd3b ("bpf: add register bounds sanity checks and sanitization")
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 11 ++++++++---
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
kernel/bpf/verifier.c +8 -3
index d17f14b35b79..d79038a8da10 100644
@@ -14558,9 +14558,6 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
 
-	/* pointer types do not carry 32-bit bounds at the moment. */
-	__mark_reg32_unbounded(dst_reg);
-
 	if (sanitize_needed(opcode)) {
 		ret = sanitize_ptr_alu(env, insn, ptr_reg, off_reg, dst_reg,
 				       &info, false);
@@ -14568,6 +14565,14 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn
 			return sanitize_err(env, insn, ret);
 	}
 
+	/* Pointer types do not carry 32-bit bounds at the moment. Blank r32
+	 * only after sanitize_ptr_alu() may have snapshotted dst_reg into a
+	 * speculative path: otherwise that snapshot freezes a const offset
+	 * with an unbounded r32, which later trips reg_bounds_sanity_check().
+	 * reg_bounds_sync() below re-derives r32 from the updated offset.
+	 */
+	__mark_reg32_unbounded(dst_reg);
+
 	switch (opcode) {
 	case BPF_ADD:
 		/*
Signature · 1 line
2.43.0
#1 lore raw

PATCH 2/2 selftests/bpf: Add reg-invariants test for speculative pointer arithmetic

An unprivileged socket filter does variable pointer arithmetic on a PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE whose offset collapses to a constant. The Spectre-v1 speculative path used to snapshot the pointer with a const offset and an unbounded r32, which tripped reg_bounds_sanity_check() on the following register move.

Mark the test __success_unpriv (the speculative path only runs unprivileged) and flag it BPF_F_TEST_REG_INVARIANTS so the invariant violation becomes a hard load failure. The unprivileged run fails without the verifier fix and passes with it:

verifier_bounds/spec_ptr_alu_const_offset @unpriv:FAIL # without fix
verifier_bounds/spec_ptr_alu_const_offset @unpriv:OK # with fix

---
 .../selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds.c     | 41 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+)
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds.c +41 -0
index 1a273e416fed..df8d5309657e 100644
@@ -2267,6 +2267,47 @@ __naked void deduce64_from_32_wrapping_32bit(void)
 	: __clobber_all);
 }
 
+/*
+ * Unprivileged variable pointer arithmetic on a PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE whose
+ * offset collapses to a constant. The Spectre-v1 speculative path snapshots
+ * the pointer while its r32 has just been blanked but its offset not yet
+ * synced; the following register move used to trip reg_bounds_sanity_check()
+ * ("const subreg tnum out of sync with range bounds"). With
+ * BPF_F_TEST_REG_INVARIANTS that violation turns into a load failure, so the
+ * unprivileged program must still load.
+ */
+SEC("socket")
+__success __success_unpriv
+__flag(BPF_F_TEST_REG_INVARIANTS)
+__naked void spec_ptr_alu_const_offset(void)
+{
+	asm volatile ("							\
+	call %[bpf_ktime_get_ns];					\
+	*(u64*)(r10 - 16) = r0;						\
+	r1 = 0;								\
+	*(u64*)(r10 - 8) = r1;						\
+	r2 = r10;							\
+	r2 += -8;							\
+	r1 = %[map_hash_8b] ll;						\
+	call %[bpf_map_lookup_elem];					\
+	if r0 == 0 goto l0_%=;						\
+	r1 = *(u64*)(r10 - 16);						\
+	r2 = 0x40000000;						\
+	if r1 > r2 goto l0_%=;						\
+	if r1 s> 1 goto l0_%=;		/* r1 in [0, 1] */		\
+	r0 += r1;			/* ptr += bounded scalar */	\
+	r9 = r0;			/* used to trip the warning */	\
+	*(u8*)(r0 + 0) = r1;						\
+l0_%=:	r0 = 0;								\
+	exit;								\
+	"
+	:
+	: __imm(bpf_ktime_get_ns),
+	  __imm(bpf_map_lookup_elem),
+	  __imm_addr(map_hash_8b)
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
 /* Check that range_within() compares cnum ranges, not min/max projections. */
 SEC("socket")
 __failure __msg("div by zero")
Signature · 1 line
2.43.0
#2 lore raw

Re: [PATCH bpf 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add reg-invariants test for speculative pointer arithmetic

This isn't a bug, but would it read more clearly to say the base PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE has a constant offset that the speculative snapshot captures, rather than that the offset "collapses to a constant"?…
Quoted 7 lines
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds.c +0 -0
index bc038ac2df98..91d4600aa677 100644
@@ -2267,6 +2267,47 @@ __naked void deduce64_from_32_wrapping_32bit(void)
 	: __clobber_all);
 }

tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds.c __naked void deduce64_from_32_wrapping_32bit(void) · line 2278

Quoted 10 lines
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds.c +9 -0
 
+/*
+ * Unprivileged variable pointer arithmetic on a PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE whose
+ * offset collapses to a constant. The Spectre-v1 speculative path snapshots
+ * the pointer while its r32 has just been blanked but its offset not yet
+ * synced; the following register move used to trip reg_bounds_sanity_check()
+ * ("const subreg tnum out of sync with range bounds"). With
+ * BPF_F_TEST_REG_INVARIANTS that violation turns into a load failure, so the
+ * unprivileged program must still load.
+ */

This isn't a bug, but would it read more clearly to say the base PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE has a constant offset that the speculative snapshot captures, rather than that the offset "collapses to a constant"? The addend itself has to stay variable for sanitize_ptr_alu() to simulate the path at all.

Quoted 25 lines
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds.c +25 -0
+SEC("socket")
+__success __success_unpriv
+__flag(BPF_F_TEST_REG_INVARIANTS)
+__naked void spec_ptr_alu_const_offset(void)
+{
+	asm volatile ("							\
+	call %[bpf_ktime_get_ns];					\
+	*(u64*)(r10 - 16) = r0;						\
+	r1 = 0;								\
+	*(u64*)(r10 - 8) = r1;						\
+	r2 = r10;							\
+	r2 += -8;							\
+	r1 = %[map_hash_8b] ll;						\
+	call %[bpf_map_lookup_elem];					\
+	if r0 == 0 goto l0_%=;						\
+	r1 = *(u64*)(r10 - 16);						\
+	r2 = 0x40000000;						\
+	if r1 > r2 goto l0_%=;						\
+	if r1 s> 1 goto l0_%=;		/* r1 in [0, 1] */		\
+	r0 += r1;			/* ptr += bounded scalar */	\
+	r9 = r0;			/* used to trip the warning */	\
+	*(u8*)(r0 + 0) = r1;						\
+l0_%=:	r0 = 0;								\
+	exit;								\
+	"

tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds.c __naked void deduce64_from_32_wrapping_32bit(void) · line 2313

Quoted 10 lines
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_bounds.c +7 -0
+	:
+	: __imm(bpf_ktime_get_ns),
+	  __imm(bpf_map_lookup_elem),
+	  __imm_addr(map_hash_8b)
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
 /* Check that range_within() compares cnum ranges, not min/max projections. */
 SEC("socket")
 __failure __msg("div by zero")

---
AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md

CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/32257333410

maintainer Tested-by on v1 2/2
#3 lore raw

Re: [PATCH bpf 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add reg-invariants test for speculative pointer arithmetic

In reply to Jiayuan Chen
Quoted 11 lines · Jiayuan Chen

An unprivileged socket filter does variable pointer arithmetic on a PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE whose offset collapses to a constant. The Spectre-v1 speculative path used to snapshot the pointer with a const offset and an unbounded r32, which tripped reg_bounds_sanity_check() on the following register move.

Mark the test __success_unpriv (the speculative path only runs unprivileged) and flag it BPF_F_TEST_REG_INVARIANTS so the invariant violation becomes a hard load failure. The unprivileged run fails without the verifier fix and passes with it:

Quoted 5 lines

verifier_bounds/spec_ptr_alu_const_offset @unpriv:FAIL # without fix
verifier_bounds/spec_ptr_alu_const_offset @unpriv:OK # with fix

---

...

#4 lore raw
In reply to Jiayuan Chen
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider: - [Low] The multi-line comment introduced in the patch does not follow the preferred BPF subsystem comment…

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] The multi-line comment introduced in the patch does not follow the preferred BPF subsystem comment style. --

--- Patch [1]: [PATCH bpf 1/2] bpf: fix REG INVARIANTS VIOLATION on speculative pointer arithmetic --- commit d06a2ef5d24e558f7ddc1472c5b3c370252aa5c5
Author: Jiayuan Chen <[email protected]>
bpf: fix REG INVARIANTS VIOLATION on speculative pointer arithmetic

This patch defers the clearing of r32 for pointer registers until after sanitize_ptr_alu() has potentially snapshotted the register state. This prevents an inconsistent state where the speculative path receives a snapshot with an unbounded r32 but a constant var_off, resolving a verifier warning.

kernel/bpf/verifier.c static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn · line 14570

Quoted 9 lines
kernel/bpf/verifier.c +1 -0
index e421ea2b80c3a..ff83c8ef57be4 100644
@@ -14570,6 +14567,14 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn
 			return sanitize_err(env, insn, ret);
 	}
 
+	/* Pointer types do not carry 32-bit bounds at the moment. Blank r32

[Severity: Low]
This isn't a bug, but the multi-line comment here does not follow the preferred BPF subsystem style. The opening /* should be on its own line.

Quoted 6 lines
kernel/bpf/verifier.c +6 -0
+	 * only after sanitize_ptr_alu() may have snapshotted dst_reg into a
+	 * speculative path: otherwise that snapshot freezes a const offset
+	 * with an unbounded r32, which later trips reg_bounds_sanity_check().
+	 * reg_bounds_sync() below re-derives r32 from the updated offset.
+	 */
+	__mark_reg32_unbounded(dst_reg);
Signature · 1 line
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=1
maintainer Acked-by on v1 1/2
#5 lore raw
In reply to Jiayuan Chen
Quoted 50 lines · Jiayuan Chen

Take the following unprivileged program as an example:

	r0 = bpf_map_lookup_elem(...)	/* PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE, offset 0 */
	...
	14: r0 += r1			/* r1 is a bounded scalar */
	15: r9 = r0

Loading it triggers a verifier warning from reg_bounds_sanity_check():

	verifier bug: REG INVARIANTS VIOLATION (alu): const subreg tnum out
	of sync with range bounds r64={.base=0x0, .size=0x0}
	r32={.base=0x0, .size=0xffffffff} var_off=(0x0, 0x0)

What happens:

1. Processing insn 14 (r0 += r1) in adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(), the new offset is computed into dst_reg's var_off and 32/64-bit ranges.

2. Because pointer registers do not track 32-bit subregister bounds, __mark_reg32_unbounded() first sets r32 to the full range; r32 is re-derived from the offset at the end of the function by reg_bounds_sync().

3. On the unprivileged path, sanitize_ptr_alu() is called and, via sanitize_speculative_path() -> push_stack(), snapshots the current register state and schedules the next instruction (insn 15) to be verified directly as a speculative path.

4. That snapshot is taken between step 2 and the final reg_bounds_sync():
at this point dst_reg's var_off still holds the (const) original offset while r32 has just been blanked to the full range, i.e. the two are out of sync. When the speculative path later verifies insn 15 (r9 = r0), the inconsistent state reaches reg_bounds_sanity_check() and trips the warning.

var_off and the 32-bit range must always be consistent. There are two ways to keep the snapshot consistent:

1. sync var_off and r32 before the snapshot so they match, or
2. leave r32 at its original (already consistent) value and blank it only after the snapshot.

The whole point of sanitize_ptr_alu() is to insert a harmless masking sequence that keeps the access in bounds under speculation, so the state it snapshots should faithfully represent that. Take approach 2: move __mark_reg32_unbounded() to after sanitize_ptr_alu(), so the speculative snapshot keeps the pointer's original, consistent r32. The non-speculative path is unchanged: r32 is still blanked before the offset is applied and re-derived by reg_bounds_sync().

Quoted 5 lines
Fixes 5f99f312bd3b ("bpf: add register bounds sanity checks and sanitization")

---

Quoted 18 lines
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 11 ++++++++---
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
kernel/bpf/verifier.c +0 -3
index d17f14b35b79..d79038a8da10 100644
@@ -14558,9 +14558,6 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
 
-	/* pointer types do not carry 32-bit bounds at the moment. */
-	__mark_reg32_unbounded(dst_reg);
-
 	if (sanitize_needed(opcode)) {
 		ret = sanitize_ptr_alu(env, insn, ptr_reg, off_reg, dst_reg,
 				       &info, false);

kernel/bpf/verifier.c static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn · line 14573

Quoted 9 lines
kernel/bpf/verifier.c +6 -0
@@ -14568,6 +14565,14 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn
 			return sanitize_err(env, insn, ret);
 	}
 
+	/* Pointer types do not carry 32-bit bounds at the moment. Blank r32
+	 * only after sanitize_ptr_alu() may have snapshotted dst_reg into a
+	 * speculative path: otherwise that snapshot freezes a const offset
+	 * with an unbounded r32, which later trips reg_bounds_sanity_check().
+	 * reg_bounds_sync() below re-derives r32 from the updated offset.
+	 */

Nit: comment is a bit too verbose. "... otherwise reg_bounds_sanity_check()
might hit some constraints violations" should have been enough.

Quoted 5 lines
kernel/bpf/verifier.c +2 -0
+	__mark_reg32_unbounded(dst_reg);
+
 	switch (opcode) {
 	case BPF_ADD:
 		/*
#6 lore raw
Quoted 80 lines · Eduard Zingerman
Quoted 50 lines · Jiayuan Chen

Take the following unprivileged program as an example:

	r0 = bpf_map_lookup_elem(...)	/* PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE, offset 0 */
	...
	14: r0 += r1			/* r1 is a bounded scalar */
	15: r9 = r0

Loading it triggers a verifier warning from reg_bounds_sanity_check():

	verifier bug: REG INVARIANTS VIOLATION (alu): const subreg tnum out
	of sync with range bounds r64={.base=0x0, .size=0x0}
	r32={.base=0x0, .size=0xffffffff} var_off=(0x0, 0x0)

What happens:

1. Processing insn 14 (r0 += r1) in adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(), the new offset is computed into dst_reg's var_off and 32/64-bit ranges.

2. Because pointer registers do not track 32-bit subregister bounds, __mark_reg32_unbounded() first sets r32 to the full range; r32 is re-derived from the offset at the end of the function by reg_bounds_sync().

3. On the unprivileged path, sanitize_ptr_alu() is called and, via sanitize_speculative_path() -> push_stack(), snapshots the current register state and schedules the next instruction (insn 15) to be verified directly as a speculative path.

4. That snapshot is taken between step 2 and the final reg_bounds_sync():
at this point dst_reg's var_off still holds the (const) original offset while r32 has just been blanked to the full range, i.e. the two are out of sync. When the speculative path later verifies insn 15 (r9 = r0), the inconsistent state reaches reg_bounds_sanity_check() and trips the warning.

var_off and the 32-bit range must always be consistent. There are two ways to keep the snapshot consistent:

1. sync var_off and r32 before the snapshot so they match, or
2. leave r32 at its original (already consistent) value and blank it only after the snapshot.

The whole point of sanitize_ptr_alu() is to insert a harmless masking sequence that keeps the access in bounds under speculation, so the state it snapshots should faithfully represent that. Take approach 2: move __mark_reg32_unbounded() to after sanitize_ptr_alu(), so the speculative snapshot keeps the pointer's original, consistent r32. The non-speculative path is unchanged: r32 is still blanked before the offset is applied and re-derived by reg_bounds_sync().

Quoted 5 lines
Fixes 5f99f312bd3b ("bpf: add register bounds sanity checks and sanitization")

---

Quoted 21 lines
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 11 ++++++++---
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
kernel/bpf/verifier.c +0 -3
index d17f14b35b79..d79038a8da10 100644
@@ -14558,9 +14558,6 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
 
-	/* pointer types do not carry 32-bit bounds at the moment. */
-	__mark_reg32_unbounded(dst_reg);
-
 	if (sanitize_needed(opcode)) {
 		ret = sanitize_ptr_alu(env, insn, ptr_reg, off_reg, dst_reg,
 				       &info, false);
@@ -14568,6 +14565,14 @@ static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn
 			return sanitize_err(env, insn, ret);
 	}
 
Quoted 10 lines

kernel/bpf/verifier.c static int adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn · line 14573

Quoted 6 lines
kernel/bpf/verifier.c +6 -0
+	/* Pointer types do not carry 32-bit bounds at the moment. Blank r32
+	 * only after sanitize_ptr_alu() may have snapshotted dst_reg into a
+	 * speculative path: otherwise that snapshot freezes a const offset
+	 * with an unbounded r32, which later trips reg_bounds_sanity_check().
+	 * reg_bounds_sync() below re-derives r32 from the updated offset.
+	 */

Nit: comment is a bit too verbose. "... otherwise reg_bounds_sanity_check()
might hit some constraints violations" should have been enough.

Fixed style and verbosity while applying.

Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
kernel/bpf/verifier.c +2 -0
+	__mark_reg32_unbounded(dst_reg);
+
 	switch (opcode) {
 	case BPF_ADD:
 		/*
#7 lore raw
In reply to Jiayuan Chen
This series was applied to bpf/bpf.git (master) by Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <[email protected]>:

Hello:

This series was applied to bpf/bpf.git (master)
by Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <[email protected]>:

Quoted 8 lines · On Wed, 19 Aug 2026 20:58:29 +0800 you wrote:

Take the following unprivileged program as an example:

	r0 = bpf_map_lookup_elem(...)	/* PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE, offset 0 */
	...
	14: r0 += r1			/* r1 is a bounded scalar */
	15: r9 = r0

[...]

Here is the summary with links:
- [bpf,1/2] bpf: fix REG INVARIANTS VIOLATION on speculative pointer arithmetic (no matching commit)
- [bpf,2/2] selftests/bpf: Add reg-invariants test for speculative pointer arithmetic

    https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf/c/7ee2f20bf20e

You are awesome, thank you!

Signature · 2 lines
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html