CVE-2025-38279 (GCVE-0-2025-38279)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5
Published
2025-07-10 07:41
Modified
2025-07-28 04:17
Severity ?
VLAI Severity ?
EPSS score ?
Summary
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: Do not include stack ptr register in precision backtracking bookkeeping
Yi Lai reported an issue ([1]) where the following warning appears
in kernel dmesg:
[ 60.643604] verifier backtracking bug
[ 60.643635] WARNING: CPU: 10 PID: 2315 at kernel/bpf/verifier.c:4302 __mark_chain_precision+0x3a6c/0x3e10
[ 60.648428] Modules linked in: bpf_testmod(OE)
[ 60.650471] CPU: 10 UID: 0 PID: 2315 Comm: test_progs Tainted: G OE 6.15.0-rc4-gef11287f8289-dirty #327 PREEMPT(full)
[ 60.654385] Tainted: [O]=OOT_MODULE, [E]=UNSIGNED_MODULE
[ 60.656682] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.14.0-0-g155821a1990b-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
[ 60.660475] RIP: 0010:__mark_chain_precision+0x3a6c/0x3e10
[ 60.662814] Code: 5a 30 84 89 ea e8 c4 d9 01 00 80 3d 3e 7d d8 04 00 0f 85 60 fa ff ff c6 05 31 7d d8 04
01 48 c7 c7 00 58 30 84 e8 c4 06 a5 ff <0f> 0b e9 46 fa ff ff 48 ...
[ 60.668720] RSP: 0018:ffff888116cc7298 EFLAGS: 00010246
[ 60.671075] RAX: 54d70e82dfd31900 RBX: ffff888115b65e20 RCX: 0000000000000000
[ 60.673659] RDX: 0000000000000001 RSI: 0000000000000004 RDI: 00000000ffffffff
[ 60.676241] RBP: 0000000000000400 R08: ffff8881f6f23bd3 R09: 1ffff1103ede477a
[ 60.678787] R10: dffffc0000000000 R11: ffffed103ede477b R12: ffff888115b60ae8
[ 60.681420] R13: 1ffff11022b6cbc4 R14: 00000000fffffff2 R15: 0000000000000001
[ 60.684030] FS: 00007fc2aedd80c0(0000) GS:ffff88826fa8a000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
[ 60.686837] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
[ 60.689027] CR2: 000056325369e000 CR3: 000000011088b002 CR4: 0000000000370ef0
[ 60.691623] Call Trace:
[ 60.692821] <TASK>
[ 60.693960] ? __pfx_verbose+0x10/0x10
[ 60.695656] ? __pfx_disasm_kfunc_name+0x10/0x10
[ 60.697495] check_cond_jmp_op+0x16f7/0x39b0
[ 60.699237] do_check+0x58fa/0xab10
...
Further analysis shows the warning is at line 4302 as below:
4294 /* static subprog call instruction, which
4295 * means that we are exiting current subprog,
4296 * so only r1-r5 could be still requested as
4297 * precise, r0 and r6-r10 or any stack slot in
4298 * the current frame should be zero by now
4299 */
4300 if (bt_reg_mask(bt) & ~BPF_REGMASK_ARGS) {
4301 verbose(env, "BUG regs %x\n", bt_reg_mask(bt));
4302 WARN_ONCE(1, "verifier backtracking bug");
4303 return -EFAULT;
4304 }
With the below test (also in the next patch):
__used __naked static void __bpf_jmp_r10(void)
{
asm volatile (
"r2 = 2314885393468386424 ll;"
"goto +0;"
"if r2 <= r10 goto +3;"
"if r1 >= -1835016 goto +0;"
"if r2 <= 8 goto +0;"
"if r3 <= 0 goto +0;"
"exit;"
::: __clobber_all);
}
SEC("?raw_tp")
__naked void bpf_jmp_r10(void)
{
asm volatile (
"r3 = 0 ll;"
"call __bpf_jmp_r10;"
"r0 = 0;"
"exit;"
::: __clobber_all);
}
The following is the verifier failure log:
0: (18) r3 = 0x0 ; R3_w=0
2: (85) call pc+2
caller:
R10=fp0
callee:
frame1: R1=ctx() R3_w=0 R10=fp0
5: frame1: R1=ctx() R3_w=0 R10=fp0
; asm volatile (" \ @ verifier_precision.c:184
5: (18) r2 = 0x20202000256c6c78 ; frame1: R2_w=0x20202000256c6c78
7: (05) goto pc+0
8: (bd) if r2 <= r10 goto pc+3 ; frame1: R2_w=0x20202000256c6c78 R10=fp0
9: (35) if r1 >= 0xffe3fff8 goto pc+0 ; frame1: R1=ctx()
10: (b5) if r2 <= 0x8 goto pc+0
mark_precise: frame1: last_idx 10 first_idx 0 subseq_idx -1
mark_precise: frame1: regs=r2 stack= before 9: (35) if r1 >= 0xffe3fff8 goto pc+0
mark_precise: frame1: regs=r2 stack= before 8: (bd) if r2 <= r10 goto pc+3
mark_preci
---truncated---
References
Impacted products
{
"containers": {
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"product": "Linux",
"programFiles": [
"include/linux/bpf_verifier.h",
"kernel/bpf/verifier.c"
],
"repo": "https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git",
"vendor": "Linux",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "4265682c29c92f52c0da6fad5a79b5801462c8de",
"status": "affected",
"version": "407958a0e980b9e1842ab87b5a1040521e1e24e9",
"versionType": "git"
},
{
"lessThan": "ac49b7560b4b08b1e4043a29214cc7ad77644c00",
"status": "affected",
"version": "407958a0e980b9e1842ab87b5a1040521e1e24e9",
"versionType": "git"
},
{
"lessThan": "e2d2115e56c4a02377189bfc3a9a7933552a7b0f",
"status": "affected",
"version": "407958a0e980b9e1842ab87b5a1040521e1e24e9",
"versionType": "git"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "fc2778c42f99c7de52fc004157b3c3ee4dcc208a",
"versionType": "git"
}
]
},
{
"defaultStatus": "affected",
"product": "Linux",
"programFiles": [
"include/linux/bpf_verifier.h",
"kernel/bpf/verifier.c"
],
"repo": "https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git",
"vendor": "Linux",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "6.5"
},
{
"lessThan": "6.5",
"status": "unaffected",
"version": "0",
"versionType": "semver"
},
{
"lessThanOrEqual": "6.12.*",
"status": "unaffected",
"version": "6.12.37",
"versionType": "semver"
},
{
"lessThanOrEqual": "6.15.*",
"status": "unaffected",
"version": "6.15.3",
"versionType": "semver"
},
{
"lessThanOrEqual": "*",
"status": "unaffected",
"version": "6.16",
"versionType": "original_commit_for_fix"
}
]
}
],
"cpeApplicability": [
{
"nodes": [
{
"cpeMatch": [
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"versionEndExcluding": "6.12.37",
"versionStartIncluding": "6.5",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"versionEndExcluding": "6.15.3",
"versionStartIncluding": "6.5",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"versionEndExcluding": "6.16",
"versionStartIncluding": "6.5",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"versionStartIncluding": "6.4.4",
"vulnerable": true
}
],
"negate": false,
"operator": "OR"
}
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nbpf: Do not include stack ptr register in precision backtracking bookkeeping\n\nYi Lai reported an issue ([1]) where the following warning appears\nin kernel dmesg:\n [ 60.643604] verifier backtracking bug\n [ 60.643635] WARNING: CPU: 10 PID: 2315 at kernel/bpf/verifier.c:4302 __mark_chain_precision+0x3a6c/0x3e10\n [ 60.648428] Modules linked in: bpf_testmod(OE)\n [ 60.650471] CPU: 10 UID: 0 PID: 2315 Comm: test_progs Tainted: G OE 6.15.0-rc4-gef11287f8289-dirty #327 PREEMPT(full)\n [ 60.654385] Tainted: [O]=OOT_MODULE, [E]=UNSIGNED_MODULE\n [ 60.656682] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.14.0-0-g155821a1990b-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014\n [ 60.660475] RIP: 0010:__mark_chain_precision+0x3a6c/0x3e10\n [ 60.662814] Code: 5a 30 84 89 ea e8 c4 d9 01 00 80 3d 3e 7d d8 04 00 0f 85 60 fa ff ff c6 05 31 7d d8 04\n 01 48 c7 c7 00 58 30 84 e8 c4 06 a5 ff \u003c0f\u003e 0b e9 46 fa ff ff 48 ...\n [ 60.668720] RSP: 0018:ffff888116cc7298 EFLAGS: 00010246\n [ 60.671075] RAX: 54d70e82dfd31900 RBX: ffff888115b65e20 RCX: 0000000000000000\n [ 60.673659] RDX: 0000000000000001 RSI: 0000000000000004 RDI: 00000000ffffffff\n [ 60.676241] RBP: 0000000000000400 R08: ffff8881f6f23bd3 R09: 1ffff1103ede477a\n [ 60.678787] R10: dffffc0000000000 R11: ffffed103ede477b R12: ffff888115b60ae8\n [ 60.681420] R13: 1ffff11022b6cbc4 R14: 00000000fffffff2 R15: 0000000000000001\n [ 60.684030] FS: 00007fc2aedd80c0(0000) GS:ffff88826fa8a000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000\n [ 60.686837] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033\n [ 60.689027] CR2: 000056325369e000 CR3: 000000011088b002 CR4: 0000000000370ef0\n [ 60.691623] Call Trace:\n [ 60.692821] \u003cTASK\u003e\n [ 60.693960] ? __pfx_verbose+0x10/0x10\n [ 60.695656] ? __pfx_disasm_kfunc_name+0x10/0x10\n [ 60.697495] check_cond_jmp_op+0x16f7/0x39b0\n [ 60.699237] do_check+0x58fa/0xab10\n ...\n\nFurther analysis shows the warning is at line 4302 as below:\n\n 4294 /* static subprog call instruction, which\n 4295 * means that we are exiting current subprog,\n 4296 * so only r1-r5 could be still requested as\n 4297 * precise, r0 and r6-r10 or any stack slot in\n 4298 * the current frame should be zero by now\n 4299 */\n 4300 if (bt_reg_mask(bt) \u0026 ~BPF_REGMASK_ARGS) {\n 4301 verbose(env, \"BUG regs %x\\n\", bt_reg_mask(bt));\n 4302 WARN_ONCE(1, \"verifier backtracking bug\");\n 4303 return -EFAULT;\n 4304 }\n\nWith the below test (also in the next patch):\n __used __naked static void __bpf_jmp_r10(void)\n {\n\tasm volatile (\n\t\"r2 = 2314885393468386424 ll;\"\n\t\"goto +0;\"\n\t\"if r2 \u003c= r10 goto +3;\"\n\t\"if r1 \u003e= -1835016 goto +0;\"\n\t\"if r2 \u003c= 8 goto +0;\"\n\t\"if r3 \u003c= 0 goto +0;\"\n\t\"exit;\"\n\t::: __clobber_all);\n }\n\n SEC(\"?raw_tp\")\n __naked void bpf_jmp_r10(void)\n {\n\tasm volatile (\n\t\"r3 = 0 ll;\"\n\t\"call __bpf_jmp_r10;\"\n\t\"r0 = 0;\"\n\t\"exit;\"\n\t::: __clobber_all);\n }\n\nThe following is the verifier failure log:\n 0: (18) r3 = 0x0 ; R3_w=0\n 2: (85) call pc+2\n caller:\n R10=fp0\n callee:\n frame1: R1=ctx() R3_w=0 R10=fp0\n 5: frame1: R1=ctx() R3_w=0 R10=fp0\n ; asm volatile (\" \\ @ verifier_precision.c:184\n 5: (18) r2 = 0x20202000256c6c78 ; frame1: R2_w=0x20202000256c6c78\n 7: (05) goto pc+0\n 8: (bd) if r2 \u003c= r10 goto pc+3 ; frame1: R2_w=0x20202000256c6c78 R10=fp0\n 9: (35) if r1 \u003e= 0xffe3fff8 goto pc+0 ; frame1: R1=ctx()\n 10: (b5) if r2 \u003c= 0x8 goto pc+0\n mark_precise: frame1: last_idx 10 first_idx 0 subseq_idx -1\n mark_precise: frame1: regs=r2 stack= before 9: (35) if r1 \u003e= 0xffe3fff8 goto pc+0\n mark_precise: frame1: regs=r2 stack= before 8: (bd) if r2 \u003c= r10 goto pc+3\n mark_preci\n---truncated---"
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2025-07-28T04:17:09.350Z",
"orgId": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"shortName": "Linux"
},
"references": [
{
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/4265682c29c92f52c0da6fad5a79b5801462c8de"
},
{
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/ac49b7560b4b08b1e4043a29214cc7ad77644c00"
},
{
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/e2d2115e56c4a02377189bfc3a9a7933552a7b0f"
}
],
"title": "bpf: Do not include stack ptr register in precision backtracking bookkeeping",
"x_generator": {
"engine": "bippy-1.2.0"
}
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"assignerShortName": "Linux",
"cveId": "CVE-2025-38279",
"datePublished": "2025-07-10T07:41:58.184Z",
"dateReserved": "2025-04-16T04:51:23.998Z",
"dateUpdated": "2025-07-28T04:17:09.350Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.1",
"vulnerability-lookup:meta": {
"nvd": "{\"cve\":{\"id\":\"CVE-2025-38279\",\"sourceIdentifier\":\"416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67\",\"published\":\"2025-07-10T08:15:26.240\",\"lastModified\":\"2025-07-10T15:15:28.063\",\"vulnStatus\":\"Awaiting Analysis\",\"cveTags\":[],\"descriptions\":[{\"lang\":\"en\",\"value\":\"In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\\n\\nbpf: Do not include stack ptr register in precision backtracking bookkeeping\\n\\nYi Lai reported an issue ([1]) where the following warning appears\\nin kernel dmesg:\\n [ 60.643604] verifier backtracking bug\\n [ 60.643635] WARNING: CPU: 10 PID: 2315 at kernel/bpf/verifier.c:4302 __mark_chain_precision+0x3a6c/0x3e10\\n [ 60.648428] Modules linked in: bpf_testmod(OE)\\n [ 60.650471] CPU: 10 UID: 0 PID: 2315 Comm: test_progs Tainted: G OE 6.15.0-rc4-gef11287f8289-dirty #327 PREEMPT(full)\\n [ 60.654385] Tainted: [O]=OOT_MODULE, [E]=UNSIGNED_MODULE\\n [ 60.656682] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.14.0-0-g155821a1990b-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014\\n [ 60.660475] RIP: 0010:__mark_chain_precision+0x3a6c/0x3e10\\n [ 60.662814] Code: 5a 30 84 89 ea e8 c4 d9 01 00 80 3d 3e 7d d8 04 00 0f 85 60 fa ff ff c6 05 31 7d d8 04\\n 01 48 c7 c7 00 58 30 84 e8 c4 06 a5 ff \u003c0f\u003e 0b e9 46 fa ff ff 48 ...\\n [ 60.668720] RSP: 0018:ffff888116cc7298 EFLAGS: 00010246\\n [ 60.671075] RAX: 54d70e82dfd31900 RBX: ffff888115b65e20 RCX: 0000000000000000\\n [ 60.673659] RDX: 0000000000000001 RSI: 0000000000000004 RDI: 00000000ffffffff\\n [ 60.676241] RBP: 0000000000000400 R08: ffff8881f6f23bd3 R09: 1ffff1103ede477a\\n [ 60.678787] R10: dffffc0000000000 R11: ffffed103ede477b R12: ffff888115b60ae8\\n [ 60.681420] R13: 1ffff11022b6cbc4 R14: 00000000fffffff2 R15: 0000000000000001\\n [ 60.684030] FS: 00007fc2aedd80c0(0000) GS:ffff88826fa8a000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000\\n [ 60.686837] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033\\n [ 60.689027] CR2: 000056325369e000 CR3: 000000011088b002 CR4: 0000000000370ef0\\n [ 60.691623] Call Trace:\\n [ 60.692821] \u003cTASK\u003e\\n [ 60.693960] ? __pfx_verbose+0x10/0x10\\n [ 60.695656] ? __pfx_disasm_kfunc_name+0x10/0x10\\n [ 60.697495] check_cond_jmp_op+0x16f7/0x39b0\\n [ 60.699237] do_check+0x58fa/0xab10\\n ...\\n\\nFurther analysis shows the warning is at line 4302 as below:\\n\\n 4294 /* static subprog call instruction, which\\n 4295 * means that we are exiting current subprog,\\n 4296 * so only r1-r5 could be still requested as\\n 4297 * precise, r0 and r6-r10 or any stack slot in\\n 4298 * the current frame should be zero by now\\n 4299 */\\n 4300 if (bt_reg_mask(bt) \u0026 ~BPF_REGMASK_ARGS) {\\n 4301 verbose(env, \\\"BUG regs %x\\\\n\\\", bt_reg_mask(bt));\\n 4302 WARN_ONCE(1, \\\"verifier backtracking bug\\\");\\n 4303 return -EFAULT;\\n 4304 }\\n\\nWith the below test (also in the next patch):\\n __used __naked static void __bpf_jmp_r10(void)\\n {\\n\\tasm volatile (\\n\\t\\\"r2 = 2314885393468386424 ll;\\\"\\n\\t\\\"goto +0;\\\"\\n\\t\\\"if r2 \u003c= r10 goto +3;\\\"\\n\\t\\\"if r1 \u003e= -1835016 goto +0;\\\"\\n\\t\\\"if r2 \u003c= 8 goto +0;\\\"\\n\\t\\\"if r3 \u003c= 0 goto +0;\\\"\\n\\t\\\"exit;\\\"\\n\\t::: __clobber_all);\\n }\\n\\n SEC(\\\"?raw_tp\\\")\\n __naked void bpf_jmp_r10(void)\\n {\\n\\tasm volatile (\\n\\t\\\"r3 = 0 ll;\\\"\\n\\t\\\"call __bpf_jmp_r10;\\\"\\n\\t\\\"r0 = 0;\\\"\\n\\t\\\"exit;\\\"\\n\\t::: __clobber_all);\\n }\\n\\nThe following is the verifier failure log:\\n 0: (18) r3 = 0x0 ; R3_w=0\\n 2: (85) call pc+2\\n caller:\\n R10=fp0\\n callee:\\n frame1: R1=ctx() R3_w=0 R10=fp0\\n 5: frame1: R1=ctx() R3_w=0 R10=fp0\\n ; asm volatile (\\\" \\\\ @ verifier_precision.c:184\\n 5: (18) r2 = 0x20202000256c6c78 ; frame1: R2_w=0x20202000256c6c78\\n 7: (05) goto pc+0\\n 8: (bd) if r2 \u003c= r10 goto pc+3 ; frame1: R2_w=0x20202000256c6c78 R10=fp0\\n 9: (35) if r1 \u003e= 0xffe3fff8 goto pc+0 ; frame1: R1=ctx()\\n 10: (b5) if r2 \u003c= 0x8 goto pc+0\\n mark_precise: frame1: last_idx 10 first_idx 0 subseq_idx -1\\n mark_precise: frame1: regs=r2 stack= before 9: (35) if r1 \u003e= 0xffe3fff8 goto pc+0\\n mark_precise: frame1: regs=r2 stack= before 8: (bd) if r2 \u003c= r10 goto pc+3\\n mark_preci\\n---truncated---\"},{\"lang\":\"es\",\"value\":\"En el kernel de Linux, se ha resuelto la siguiente vulnerabilidad: bpf: No incluir el registro ptr de pila en la contabilidad de retroceso de precisi\u00f3n Yi Lai inform\u00f3 de un problema ([1]) en el que aparece la siguiente advertencia en el dmesg del kernel: [ 60.643604] error de retroceso del verificador [ 60.643635] ADVERTENCIA: CPU: 10 PID: 2315 at kernel/bpf/verifier.c:4302 __mark_chain_precision+0x3a6c/0x3e10 [ 60.648428] Modules linked in: bpf_testmod(OE) [ 60.650471] CPU: 10 UID: 0 PID: 2315 Comm: test_progs Tainted: G OE 6.15.0-rc4-gef11287f8289-dirty #327 PREEMPT(full) [ 60.654385] Tainted: [O]=OOT_MODULE, [E]=UNSIGNED_MODULE [ 60.656682] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.14.0-0-g155821a1990b-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014 [ 60.660475] RIP: 0010:__mark_chain_precision+0x3a6c/0x3e10 [ 60.662814] Code: 5a 30 84 89 ea e8 c4 d9 01 00 80 3d 3e 7d d8 04 00 0f 85 60 fa ff ff c6 05 31 7d d8 04 01 48 c7 c7 00 58 30 84 e8 c4 06 a5 ff \u0026lt;0f\u0026gt; 0b e9 46 fa ff ff 48 ... [ 60.668720] RSP: 0018:ffff888116cc7298 EFLAGS: 00010246 [ 60.671075] RAX: 54d70e82dfd31900 RBX: ffff888115b65e20 RCX: 0000000000000000 [ 60.673659] RDX: 0000000000000001 RSI: 0000000000000004 RDI: 00000000ffffffff [ 60.676241] RBP: 0000000000000400 R08: ffff8881f6f23bd3 R09: 1ffff1103ede477a [ 60.678787] R10: dffffc0000000000 R11: ffffed103ede477b R12: ffff888115b60ae8 [ 60.681420] R13: 1ffff11022b6cbc4 R14: 00000000fffffff2 R15: 0000000000000001 [ 60.684030] FS: 00007fc2aedd80c0(0000) GS:ffff88826fa8a000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 [ 60.686837] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 [ 60.689027] CR2: 000056325369e000 CR3: 000000011088b002 CR4: 0000000000370ef0 [ 60.691623] Call Trace: [ 60.692821] [ 60.693960] ? __pfx_verbose+0x10/0x10 [ 60.695656] ? __pfx_disasm_kfunc_name+0x10/0x10 [ 60.697495] check_cond_jmp_op+0x16f7/0x39b0 [ 60.699237] do_check+0x58fa/0xab10 ... Further analysis shows the warning is at line 4302 as below: 4294 /* static subprog call instruction, which 4295 * means that we are exiting current subprog, 4296 * so only r1-r5 could be still requested as 4297 * precise, r0 and r6-r10 or any stack slot in 4298 * the current frame should be zero by now 4299 */ 4300 if (bt_reg_mask(bt) \u0026amp; ~BPF_REGMASK_ARGS) { 4301 verbose(env, \\\"BUG regs %x\\\\n\\\", bt_reg_mask(bt)); 4302 WARN_ONCE(1, \\\"verifier backtracking bug\\\"); 4303 return -EFAULT; 4304 } With the below test (also in the next patch): __used __naked static void __bpf_jmp_r10(void) { asm volatile ( \\\"r2 = 2314885393468386424 ll;\\\" \\\"goto +0;\\\" \\\"if r2 \u0026lt;= r10 goto +3;\\\" \\\"if r1 \u0026gt;= -1835016 goto +0;\\\" \\\"if r2 \u0026lt;= 8 goto +0;\\\" \\\"if r3 \u0026lt;= 0 goto +0;\\\" \\\"exit;\\\" ::: __clobber_all); } SEC(\\\"?raw_tp\\\") __naked void bpf_jmp_r10(void) { asm volatile ( \\\"r3 = 0 ll;\\\" \\\"call __bpf_jmp_r10;\\\" \\\"r0 = 0;\\\" \\\"exit;\\\" ::: __clobber_all); } The following is the verifier failure log: 0: (18) r3 = 0x0 ; R3_w=0 2: (85) call pc+2 caller: R10=fp0 callee: frame1: R1=ctx() R3_w=0 R10=fp0 5: frame1: R1=ctx() R3_w=0 R10=fp0 ; asm volatile (\\\" \\\\ @ verifier_precision.c:184 5: (18) r2 = 0x20202000256c6c78 ; frame1: R2_w=0x20202000256c6c78 7: (05) goto pc+0 8: (bd) if r2 \u0026lt;= r10 goto pc+3 ; frame1: R2_w=0x20202000256c6c78 R10=fp0 9: (35) if r1 \u0026gt;= 0xffe3fff8 goto pc+0 ; frame1: R1=ctx() 10: (b5) if r2 \u0026lt;= 0x8 goto pc+0 mark_precise: frame1: last_idx 10 first_idx 0 subseq_idx -1 mark_precise: frame1: regs=r2 stack= before 9: (35) if r1 \u0026gt;= 0xffe3fff8 goto pc+0 mark_precise: frame1: regs=r2 stack= before 8: (bd) if r2 \u0026lt;= r10 goto pc+3 mark_preci ---truncado---\"}],\"metrics\":{},\"references\":[{\"url\":\"https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/4265682c29c92f52c0da6fad5a79b5801462c8de\",\"source\":\"416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67\"},{\"url\":\"https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/ac49b7560b4b08b1e4043a29214cc7ad77644c00\",\"source\":\"416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67\"},{\"url\":\"https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/e2d2115e56c4a02377189bfc3a9a7933552a7b0f\",\"source\":\"416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67\"}]}}"
}
}
Loading…
Loading…
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
- Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
Loading…
Loading…