Skip to content

Commit 3afc64c

Browse files
Wrptt3885axboe
authored andcommitted
io_uring/bpf-ops: reject re-registration of an already-bound ops
io_install_bpf() only rejects a second registration on the ctx side (ctx->bpf_ops) and sets the per-map back-pointer ops->priv unconditionally. The struct_ops link path never advances a map past BPF_STRUCT_OPS_STATE_READY, so the same io_uring_bpf_ops map can be registered more than once, and bpf_io_reg() re-resolves the target ring via fget(ops->ring_fd) on every call. A caller can therefore point the same ring_fd at a different io_ring_ctx between two BPF_LINK_CREATE calls. The second registration passes the ctx->bpf_ops check (the new ctx has none) and overwrites ops->priv, orphaning the first ctx. Teardown (io_eject_bpf()/bpf_io_unreg()) only reaches a ctx through ops->priv, so the orphaned ctx is never torn down: its ctx->loop_step keeps pointing into the struct_ops trampoline, which is freed once the map is gone. A later io_uring_enter() on the orphaned ring then calls the dangling ctx->loop_step from io_run_loop() -- a use-after-free of freed executable memory, reachable by a task with CAP_BPF + CAP_PERFMON. Reject registration when ops->priv is already set, as hid_bpf_reg() does for its struct_ops. Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Fixes: 98f3763 ("io_uring/bpf-ops: implement bpf ops registration") Signed-off-by: Woraphat Khiaodaeng <worapat.kd2@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@suse.de> Reviewed-by: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com> Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260717154537.129736-1-worapat.kd2@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
1 parent cc60937 commit 3afc64c

1 file changed

Lines changed: 2 additions & 0 deletions

File tree

io_uring/bpf-ops.c

Lines changed: 2 additions & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -168,6 +168,8 @@ static int io_install_bpf(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, struct io_uring_bpf_ops *ops)
168168

169169
if (ctx->bpf_ops)
170170
return -EBUSY;
171+
if (ops->priv)
172+
return -EBUSY;
171173
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!ops->loop_step))
172174
return -EINVAL;
173175

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)