kernel test robot reported verifier bug [1] where the helper func
pointer could be NULL due to disabled config option.
As Alexei suggested we could check on that in get_helper_proto
directly. Marking tail_call helper func with BPF_PTR_POISON,
because it is unused by design.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/
202507160818.
68358831-lkp@intel.com
Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
Reported-by: syzbot+a9ed3d9132939852d0df@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Suggested-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Paul Chaignon <paul.chaignon@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20250814200655.945632-1-jolsa@kernel.org
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202507160818.68358831-lkp@intel.com
/* Always built-in helper functions. */
const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_tail_call_proto = {
- .func = NULL,
+ /* func is unused for tail_call, we set it to pass the
+ * get_helper_proto check
+ */
+ .func = BPF_PTR_POISON,
.gpl_only = false,
.ret_type = RET_VOID,
.arg1_type = ARG_PTR_TO_CTX,
return -EINVAL;
*ptr = env->ops->get_func_proto(func_id, env->prog);
- return *ptr ? 0 : -EINVAL;
+ return *ptr && (*ptr)->func ? 0 : -EINVAL;
}
static int check_helper_call(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct bpf_insn *insn,