Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 1/2] bpf: Support new pointer param types via SCALAR_VALUE for trampolines

[Eduard Zingerman]

On Wed, 2026-03-04 at 11:22 +1100, Slava Imameev wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Mar 2026 14:43:01, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> > On Wed, 2026-03-04 at 08:49 +1100, Slava Imameev wrote:
> > > On 2026-03-03 20:05 UTC, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > @@ -6902,11 +6921,7 @@ bool btf_ctx_access(int off, int size, enum bpf_access_type type,
> > > > >               }
> > > > >       }
> > > > > 
> > > > > -     /*
> > > > > -      * If it's a pointer to void, it's the same as scalar from the verifier
> > > > > -      * safety POV. Either way, no futher pointer walking is allowed.
> > > > > -      */
> > > > > -     if (is_void_or_int_ptr(btf, t))
> > > > > +     if (is_ptr_treated_as_scalar(btf, t))
> > > > >               return true;
> > > > 
> > > > I'm probably missing a point here, but what's wrong with Alexei's
> > > > suggestion to do this instead:
> > > > 
> > > >         if (is_ptr_treated_as_scalar(btf, t))
> > > >                  return true;
> > > > ?
> > 
> > Uh-oh, I copy-pasted the wrong snippet, sorry.
> > The correct snippet is:
> > 
> >          if (btf_type_is_struct_ptr(btf, t))
> >                   return true;
> > 
> > With it the selftests pass (except for `float` tests noted earlier).
> > And regardless of selftests, the code below this point will
> > error out if `t` is not a pointer to struct.
> 
> I think you tested with
> 
> 	if (!btf_type_is_struct_ptr(btf, t))
> 		return true;
> 
> I decided on a narrower condition, as
> 
> - if (!btf_type_is_struct_ptr(btf, t)) -

Yes, sorry again.

> changes the existing selection condition from "treat only these types
> as scalar" to "treat as scalar any type that is not a pointer to
> structure". Technically both approaches cover the problem I'm trying
> to solve - multilevel pointer support for structures, but the latter is
> open-ended and changes the current approach, which checks for pointers
> to int and void. So I'm extending this to int, void, enum 32/64,
> function, and corresponding multilevel pointers to these types and
> multilevel pointers to structures.

BTF is defined for the following non-modifier types:
- void        [allowed already]
- int         [allowed already]
- ptr         [multi-level pointers allowed by your patch]
- array       [disallowed?]
- struct      [single level pointers allowed already,
- union		   multi-level allowed by your patch]
- enum/enum64 [allowed by your patch]
- func_proto  [allowed by your patch]
- float       [disallowed]

And a few not reachable from function fields (I think BTF validation
checks that these can't be met, but would be good to double-check.
If it doesn't, it should):
- func
- var
- datasec

So, effectively you disallow reading from tracing context fields of
type: struct (non-pointer), array, float and a few types that can't be
specified for struct fields.

Does not seem necessary, tbh.

> It seems - if (!btf_type_is_struct_ptr(btf, t)) - works, but it's
> challenging to strictly prove it's sufficiently future-proof.
> 
> > > This reflects my belief in a cautious approach: adding support
> > > only for selected types with tests added for each new type. That said,
> > > I can add the suggested broader condition and make it pass the tests,
> > but I cannot be sure it will be future-proof against conflicts.
> > > 
> > > I think the broader check like
> > > 
> > >       /* skip modifiers */
> > >       tt = t;
> > >       while (btf_type_is_modifier(tt))
> > >               tt = btf_type_by_id(btf, tt->type);
> > >       if (!btf_type_is_struct(tt))
> > >               return true;
> > 
> > btf_type_is_struct_ptr() is almost identical to the snippet above.
> > 
> > > might have some incompatibility with future changes, compared to
> > > explicit type checks for selected types. This condition is
> > > open-ended, including anything instead of selecting specific types.
> > 
> > What potential incompatibility do you expect?
> > Two things change:
> > - types other then `struct foo *` or `int` can be read:
> >   - do you expect we would want to deny reading some ctx
> >     fields in the future?
> > - the value read is marked as scalar:
> >   - not much can be done with a scalar, except for leaking it to
> >     e.g. some map or ring buffer. Do you expect this to problematic?
> > 
> > Note that the above are selected based on type, not on the
> > function/parameter combination, which is already not a very effective
> > filter if some parameters need to be hidden.
> 
> I do not think any of these represent a real problem. As I said,
> my approach is based mostly on narrowing the supported types to
> reduce potential conflicts.
> 
> I do not have a good example of such conflicts.
> The added tests for pointer to float, which failed with -
> if (!btf_type_is_struct_ptr(btf, t)) - might be an example when adding
> a new type might silently pass this check because of missing tests.

Yes, but that does not really matter if verifier treats floats as
unbound scalars.

> I  was not able to convince myself a conflict will not  happen.
> 
> That said, changing
> 
> 	if (is_ptr_treated_as_scalar(btf, t))
> 		return true;
> 
> 	to
> 
> 	if (!btf_type_is_struct_ptr(btf, t))
> 		return true;
> 
> just makes the scope of these changes wider. This was
> my initial approach to this problem, but I was worried
> by its wide scope.

Let's see what Alexei would say, but I'd say there is no need to
complicate things w/o clear necessity.