Despite strong performance on code generation tasks, it remains unclear whether large language models (LLMs) genuinely reason about code execution. Existing code reasoning benchmarks primarily evaluate final output correctness under a single canonical implementation, leaving two critical aspects underexplored: (1) whether LLMs can maintain consistency to functionally equivalent implementations, and (2) whether LLMs can accurately reason about intermediate execution states. We introduce \textbf{CoRE}, a \textbf{Co}de \textbf{Re}asoning benchmark that evaluates code reasoning through \textbf{implementation invariance} and \textbf{process transparency}. Extensive evaluations on eight frontier LLMs reveal two fundamental limitations. First, models exhibit a substantial \textbf{robustness gap}, with performance varying significantly across equivalent implementations. Second, we observe \textbf{superficial execution}, where models arrive at correct final outputs without correctly reasoning about intermediate execution states. Together, these findings demonstrate that output-only evaluations are insufficient for assessing code reasoning and position CoRE as a necessary benchmark for evaluating robust and faithful code reasoning.\footnote{Data and code are available at https://github.com/ZJUSig/CoRE.}