[PATCH bpf-next v2] arm32, bpf: Reject BPF-to-BPF calls and callbacks in the JIT

[Emil Tsalapatis]

On Fri Apr 17, 2026 at 10:33 AM EDT, Puranjay Mohan wrote:
> The ARM32 BPF JIT does not support BPF-to-BPF function calls
> (BPF_PSEUDO_CALL) or callbacks (BPF_PSEUDO_FUNC), but it does
> not reject them either.
>
> When a program with subprograms is loaded (e.g. libxdp's XDP
> dispatcher uses __noinline__ subprograms, or any program using
> callbacks like bpf_loop or bpf_for_each_map_elem), the verifier
> invokes bpf_jit_subprogs() which calls bpf_int_jit_compile()
> for each subprogram.
>
> For BPF_PSEUDO_CALL, since ARM32 does not reject it, the JIT
> silently emits code using the wrong address computation:
>
>     func = __bpf_call_base + imm
>
> where imm is a pc-relative subprogram offset, producing a bogus
> function pointer.
>
> For BPF_PSEUDO_FUNC, the ldimm64 handler ignores src_reg and
> loads the immediate as a normal 64-bit value without error.
>
> In both cases, build_body() reports success and a JIT image is
> allocated. ARM32 lacks the jit_data/extra_pass mechanism needed
> for the second JIT pass in bpf_jit_subprogs(). On the second
> pass, bpf_int_jit_compile() performs a full fresh compilation,
> allocating a new JIT binary and overwriting prog->bpf_func. The
> first allocation is never freed. bpf_jit_subprogs() then detects
> the function pointer changed and aborts with -ENOTSUPP, but the
> original JIT binary has already been leaked. Each program
> load/unload cycle leaks one JIT binary allocation, as reported
> by kmemleak:
>
>     unreferenced object 0xbf0a1000 (size 4096):
>       backtrace:
>         bpf_jit_binary_alloc+0x64/0xfc
>         bpf_int_jit_compile+0x14c/0x348
>         bpf_jit_subprogs+0x4fc/0xa60
>
> Fix this by rejecting both BPF_PSEUDO_CALL in the BPF_CALL
> handler and BPF_PSEUDO_FUNC in the BPF_LD_IMM64 handler, falling
> through to the existing 'notyet' path. This causes build_body()
> to fail before any JIT binary is allocated, so
> bpf_int_jit_compile() returns the original program unjitted.
> bpf_jit_subprogs() then sees !prog->jited and cleanly falls
> back to the interpreter with no leak.

Reviewed-by: Emil Tsalapatis <emil at etsalapatis.com>

The Fixes tag is a bit unrelated since it's for x64 but the original
commit that adds the file (ddecdfcea0ae8 ?) is so far back it probably
doesn't matter.

>
> Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel at iogearbox.net>
> Fixes: 1c2a088a6626 ("bpf: x64: add JIT support for multi-function programs")
> Reported-by: Jonas Rebmann <jre at pengutronix.de>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/b63e9174-7a3d-4e22-8294-16df07a4af89@pengutronix.de
> Tested-by: Jonas Rebmann <jre at pengutronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay at kernel.org>
> ---
>
> Changelog:
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260417103004.3552500-1-puranjay@kernel.org/
> Changes in v2:
> - Add Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel at iogearbox.net>
> - Reject BPF_PSEUDO_FUNC in the BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | BPF_DW handler
> - Move code below declarations
>
> ---
>  arch/arm/net/bpf_jit_32.c | 6 ++++++
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/net/bpf_jit_32.c b/arch/arm/net/bpf_jit_32.c
> index deeb8f292454..a900aa973885 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/net/bpf_jit_32.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/net/bpf_jit_32.c
> @@ -1852,6 +1852,9 @@ static int build_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct jit_ctx *ctx)
>  	{
>  		u64 val = (u32)imm | (u64)insn[1].imm << 32;
>  
> +		if (insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_FUNC)
> +			goto notyet;
> +
>  		emit_a32_mov_i64(dst, val, ctx);
>  
>  		return 1;
> @@ -2055,6 +2058,9 @@ static int build_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct jit_ctx *ctx)
>  		const s8 *r5 = bpf2a32[BPF_REG_5];
>  		const u32 func = (u32)__bpf_call_base + (u32)imm;
>  
> +		if (insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_CALL)
> +			goto notyet;
> +
>  		emit_a32_mov_r64(true, r0, r1, ctx);
>  		emit_a32_mov_r64(true, r1, r2, ctx);
>  		emit_push_r64(r5, ctx);
>
> base-commit: 1f5ffc672165ff851063a5fd044b727ab2517ae3