Common eBPF Errors

eBPF programs must pass the kernel's verifier before they can run. The verifier is like a strict security guard—it checks that your program is safe, won't crash the kernel, and will eventually terminate. Understanding verifier errors can be tricky, especially since verifier behavior changes significantly between kernel versions.

What You Need to Know About the Verifier

Good news: Verifier errors are rare, especially on modern kernels. Most Mermin deployments work out of the box without any issues.

When problems do occur, they're typically on older kernel versions (< 5.16) that can't perform the sophisticated complexity analysis that newer kernels can. Older kernels are more conservative and may reject programs that newer kernels accept without issue.

The eBPF verifier has evolved considerably over time. A program that loads perfectly on a newer kernel might fail on an older one:

• Kernel 5.4-5.10: The early days - stricter bounds checking, more conservative validation

• Kernel 5.11-5.15: Getting smarter - improved range tracking and better loop handling

• Kernel 5.16+: Even better - enhanced state pruning for more complex programs

• Kernel 6.0+: Most sophisticated - relaxed restrictions and the most permissive verifier

Recommended: Use kernel 5.14+ (preferably 6.6+) for the best experience and fewest compatibility issues.

Hit a verifier error we haven't covered? Reach out to the Mermin team! We're constantly improving kernel compatibility based on real-world feedback.

How to Recognize Verifier Errors

When the verifier rejects a program, your pods won't start. You'll see errors like this in the logs:

ERROR Failed to load eBPF program
verification time XXXXX usec
processed XXXX insns (limit 1000000)

Your pods will be stuck in CrashLoopBackOff or Error state.

Common Verifier Errors (And What They Mean)

Let's break down the most common verifier errors you might encounter and what's actually going wrong.

Invalid Zero-Sized Read

This one shows up when the verifier thinks you're trying to read zero bytes of memory.

What you'll see:

R4 invalid zero-sized read: u64=[0,191]
verification time 38379 usec
processed 8264 insns (limit 1000000)

What's happening: The verifier detected a potential zero-byte memory read. This typically happens when your length calculations might result in zero, or when the verifier can't prove that the length is definitely non-zero.

Real-world example:

979: (2d) if r1 > r4 goto pc+1 981
985: (85) call bpf_skb_load_bytes#26
R4 invalid zero-sized read: u64=[0,191]

The verifier sees that R4 (the length parameter) could be anywhere from 0 to 191, including zero. Since reading zero bytes doesn't make sense, it rejects the program.

Invalid Map Access

This error means you're trying to access a map in a way the verifier can't verify is safe.

What you'll see:

invalid access to map value, value_size=234 off=42 size=0
R3 min value is outside of the allowed memory range
verification time 27928 usec

What's happening: The verifier can't prove your map access stays within bounds. Maybe your offset + size exceeds the map's value size, or the verifier's range tracking shows you could potentially access memory outside the allowed range.

Think of it like this: if you have a 234-byte map value and try to access byte 235, that's out of bounds. The verifier catches these potential violations before they can crash anything.

Real-world example:

2485: (0f) r4 += r3              ; R3_w=1 R4_w=map_value(off=0,ks=4,vs=234,imm=0)
2489: (73) *(u8 *)(r4 +0) = r5
invalid access to map value, value_size=234 off=42 size=0

The verifier is concerned that after adding R3 to R4, the resulting offset (42) might be too close to the end of the 234-byte value.

Instruction Limit Exceeded

Your program is doing too much! The kernel has a limit on how complex an eBPF program can be.

What you'll see:

BPF program is too large. processed 1000001 insns
processed 1000001 insns (limit 1000000)

What's happening: Your program exceeds the kernel's instruction limit (typically 1 million instructions). This usually happens when parsing deeply nested network headers or processing complex protocols.

What to do: See the Deployment Issues guide for solutions, including reducing parser complexity or limiting the number of protocol layers processed.

Unbounded Loop Detection

eBPF programs must always terminate—no infinite loops allowed!

What you'll see:

back-edge from insn X to Y
infinite loop detected at insn X

What's happening: The verifier found a loop without a provable upper bound. In eBPF, every loop must have a maximum number of iterations that the verifier can determine at verification time. If the verifier can't prove your loop will eventually exit, it rejects the program.

This is a fundamental eBPF safety requirement—infinite loops could freeze the kernel.

Stack Size Exceeded

You've used too much stack space across your function calls.

What you'll see:

combined stack size of N calls is XXXX. Too large
max stack depth exceeded

What's happening: The combined stack usage across all your function calls exceeds the kernel's limit (typically 512 bytes). Each function call adds to the stack, and nested calls add up quickly.

Understanding TC Priority and TCX Order

Beyond verifier errors, there's another important aspect of eBPF program loading: execution order. When multiple eBPF programs are attached to the same network interface, the order they run in matters—a lot.

TC (Traffic Control) priority and TCX ordering control when your eBPF program runs relative to other programs (like your CNI). This affects which packets Mermin sees and in what state (before or after CNI modifications like NAT or encapsulation).

Want to Learn More?

For the complete guide on TC priority, including troubleshooting conflicts with your CNI, see the Understanding TC Priority section in the Deployment Issues guide. It covers:

• How priority values work and why they matter

• Troubleshooting priority conflicts between Mermin and your CNI

• CNI-specific recommendations and gotchas

• How to verify and test your configuration

Quick Reference

Mermin's defaults:

• tc_priority = 1 and tcx_order = "first" - Mermin runs first to capture unfiltered packets

• Kernel < 6.6: Uses netlink-based TC with numeric priority values (1-32767, lower = earlier)

• Kernel >= 6.6: Uses TCX mode with explicit ordering ("first" or "last")

Why this matters: Mermin operates passively (observes without modifying packets), so running first is usually safe and provides the most accurate observability data.