From 6668ed271eaefaa63e686bdfbedaeb7b8e492722 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2026 10:43:19 +0200 Subject: selftests/bpf: Reject graph kptr use after RCU unlock Add a sleepable verifier test that loads a graph-node local kptr in an explicit RCU read-side critical section, then passes its node to bpf_rbtree_remove() after the section ends. Before the verifier fix, the stale NON_OWN_REF flag makes the node look like a live borrowed reference and the program is accepted. After the fix, the pointer is demoted without NON_OWN_REF and the graph kfunc argument is rejected. Also exercise a graph kptr loaded while a spin lock provides implicit RCU protection. The pointer must be invalidated when the lock is released, which guards the required ordering between non-owning-reference invalidation and RCU demotion. Update the existing fault-protected load test state description. The post-unlock pointer no longer carries NON_OWN_REF, but remains readable because the load is rewritten to use BPF_PROBE_MEM. Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260904084325.52250-7-memxor@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov --- rust/helpers/build_assert.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+) create mode 100644 rust/helpers/build_assert.c (limited to 'rust/helpers/build_assert.c') diff --git a/rust/helpers/build_assert.c b/rust/helpers/build_assert.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000..6a54b2680 --- /dev/null +++ b/rust/helpers/build_assert.c @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 + +#include + +/* + * `bindgen` binds the C `size_t` type as the Rust `usize` type, so we can + * use it in contexts where Rust expects a `usize` like slice (array) indices. + * `usize` is defined to be the same as C's `uintptr_t` type (can hold any + * pointer) but not necessarily the same as `size_t` (can hold the size of any + * single object). Most modern platforms use the same concrete integer type for + * both of them, but in case we find ourselves on a platform where + * that's not true, fail early instead of risking ABI or + * integer-overflow issues. + * + * If your platform fails this assertion, it means that you are in + * danger of integer-overflow bugs (even if you attempt to add + * `--no-size_t-is-usize`). It may be easiest to change the kernel ABI on + * your platform such that `size_t` matches `uintptr_t` (i.e., to increase + * `size_t`, because `uintptr_t` has to be at least as big as `size_t`). + */ +static_assert( + sizeof(size_t) == sizeof(uintptr_t) && + __alignof__(size_t) == __alignof__(uintptr_t), + "Rust code expects C `size_t` to match Rust `usize`" +); -- cgit v1.3.1