In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Forget ranges when refining tnum after JSET Syzbot reported a kernel warning due to a range invariant violation on the following BPF program. 0: call bpf_get_netns_cookie 1: if r0 == 0 goto <exit> 2: if r0 & Oxffffffff goto <exit> The issue is on the path where we fall through both jumps. That path is unreachable at runtime: after insn 1, we know r0 != 0, but with the sign extension on the jset, we would only fallthrough insn 2 if r0 == 0. Unfortunately, is_branch_taken() isn't currently able to figure this out, so the verifier walks all branches. The verifier then refines the register bounds using the second condition and we end up with inconsistent bounds on this unreachable path: 1: if r0 == 0 goto <exit> r0: u64=[0x1, 0xffffffffffffffff] var_off=(0, 0xffffffffffffffff) 2: if r0 & 0xffffffff goto <exit> r0 before reg_bounds_sync: u64=[0x1, 0xffffffffffffffff] var_off=(0, 0) r0 after reg_bounds_sync: u64=[0x...

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Forget ranges when refining tnum after JSET Syzbot reported a kernel warning due to a range invariant violation on the following BPF program. 0: call bpf_get_netns_cookie 1: if r0 == 0 goto <exit> 2: if r0 & Oxffffffff goto <exit> The issue is on the path where we fall through both jumps. That path is unreachable at runtime: after insn 1, we know r0 != 0, but with the sign extension on the jset, we would only fallthrough insn 2 if r0 == 0. Unfortunately, is_branch_taken() isn't currently able to figure this out, so the verifier walks all branches. The verifier then refines the register bounds using the second condition and we end up with inconsistent bounds on this unreachable path: 1: if r0 == 0 goto <exit> r0: u64=[0x1, 0xffffffffffffffff] var_off=(0, 0xffffffffffffffff) 2: if r0 & 0xffffffff goto <exit> r0 before reg_bounds_sync: u64=[0x1, 0xffffffffffffffff] var_off=(0, 0) r0 after reg_bounds_sync: u64=[0x...

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Forget ranges when refining tnum after JSET Syzbot reported a kernel warning due to a range invariant violation on the following BPF program. 0: call bpf_get_netns_cookie 1: if r0 == 0 goto <exit> 2: if r0 & Oxffffffff goto <exit> The issue is on the path where we fall through both jumps. That path is unreachable at runtime: after insn 1, we know r0 != 0, but with the sign extension on the jset, we would only fallthrough insn 2 if r0 == 0. Unfortunately, is_branch_taken() isn't currently able to figure this out, so the verifier walks all branches. The verifier then refines the register bounds using the second condition and we end up with inconsistent bounds on this unreachable path: 1: if r0 == 0 goto <exit> r0: u64=[0x1, 0xffffffffffffffff] var_off=(0, 0xffffffffffffffff) 2: if r0 & 0xffffffff goto <exit> r0 before reg_bounds_sync: u64=[0x1, 0xffffffffffffffff] var_off=(0, 0) r0 after

bpf: Forget ranges when refining tnum after JSET

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: b ...

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Forget ranges when refining tnum after JSET Syzbot reported a kernel warning due to a range invariant violation on the following BPF program. 0: call bpf_get_netns_cookie 1: if r0 == 0 goto <exit> 2: if r0 & Oxffffffff goto <exit> The issue is on the path where we fall through both jumps. That path is unreachable at runtime: after insn 1, we know r0 != 0, but with the sign extension on the jset, we would only fallthrough insn 2 if r0 == 0. Unfortunately, is_branch_taken() isn't currently able to figure this out, so the verifier walks all branches. The verifier then refines the register bounds using the second condition and we end up with inconsistent bounds on this unreachable path: 1: if r0 == 0 goto <exit> r0: u64=[0x1, 0xffffffffffffffff] var_off=(0, 0xffffffffffffffff) 2: if r0 & 0xffffffff goto <exit> r0 before reg_bounds_sync: u64=[0x1, 0xffffffffffffffff] var_off=(0, 0) r0 aft...

ELSA-2025-20662: Unbreakable Enterprise kernel security update (IMPORTANT)