linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Edward Cree <ecree@solarflare.com>
To: <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@fb.com>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Cc: <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	iovisor-dev <iovisor-dev@lists.iovisor.org>
Subject: [PATCH v5 net-next 06/12] selftests/bpf: add a test to test_align
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 15:28:00 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <a56184eb-cb65-7ca8-8a05-46160ff39c2e@solarflare.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ad840039-8d4a-b2a9-b2eb-a8f079926b53@solarflare.com>

New test adds 14 to the unknown value before adding to the packet pointer,
 meaning there's no 'fixed offset' field and instead we add into the
 var_off, yielding a '4n+2' value.

Signed-off-by: Edward Cree <ecree@solarflare.com>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 67 insertions(+)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c
index 62232e4d..74cc4a6 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c
@@ -374,6 +374,73 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
 			{33, "R5=pkt(id=4,off=18,r=22,umax_value=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc))"},
 		},
 	},
+	{
+		.descr = "packet variable offset 2",
+		.insns = {
+			/* Create an unknown offset, (4n+2)-aligned */
+			LOAD_UNKNOWN(BPF_REG_6),
+			BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_LSH, BPF_REG_6, 2),
+			BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_6, 14),
+			/* Add it to the packet pointer */
+			BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_5, BPF_REG_2),
+			BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_5, BPF_REG_6),
+			/* Check bounds and perform a read */
+			BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_4, BPF_REG_5),
+			BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_4, 4),
+			BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JGE, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_4, 1),
+			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+			BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_5, 0),
+			/* Make a (4n) offset from the value we just read */
+			BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_6, 0xff),
+			BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_LSH, BPF_REG_6, 2),
+			/* Add it to the packet pointer */
+			BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_5, BPF_REG_6),
+			/* Check bounds and perform a read */
+			BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_4, BPF_REG_5),
+			BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_4, 4),
+			BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JGE, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_4, 1),
+			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+			BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_5, 0),
+			BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+		},
+		.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
+		.matches = {
+			/* Calculated offset in R6 has unknown value, but known
+			 * alignment of 4.
+			 */
+			{8, "R2=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=8,imm=0)"},
+			{8, "R6=inv(id=0,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"},
+			/* Adding 14 makes R6 be (4n+2) */
+			{9, "R6=inv(id=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc))"},
+			/* Packet pointer has (4n+2) offset */
+			{11, "R5=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc))"},
+			{13, "R4=pkt(id=1,off=4,r=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc))"},
+			/* At the time the word size load is performed from R5,
+			 * its total fixed offset is NET_IP_ALIGN + reg->off (0)
+			 * which is 2.  Then the variable offset is (4n+2), so
+			 * the total offset is 4-byte aligned and meets the
+			 * load's requirements.
+			 */
+			{15, "R5=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=4,umin_value=14,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc))"},
+			/* Newly read value in R6 was shifted left by 2, so has
+			 * known alignment of 4.
+			 */
+			{18, "R6=inv(id=0,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"},
+			/* Added (4n) to packet pointer's (4n+2) var_off, giving
+			 * another (4n+2).
+			 */
+			{19, "R5=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=2054,var_off=(0x2; 0xffc))"},
+			{21, "R4=pkt(id=2,off=4,r=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=2054,var_off=(0x2; 0xffc))"},
+			/* At the time the word size load is performed from R5,
+			 * its total fixed offset is NET_IP_ALIGN + reg->off (0)
+			 * which is 2.  Then the variable offset is (4n+2), so
+			 * the total offset is 4-byte aligned and meets the
+			 * load's requirements.
+			 */
+			{23, "R5=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=4,umin_value=14,umax_value=2054,var_off=(0x2; 0xffc))"},
+		},
+	},
 };
 
 static int probe_filter_length(const struct bpf_insn *fp)

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-08-07 14:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-08-07 14:21 [PATCH v5 net-next 00/12] bpf: rewrite value tracking in verifier Edward Cree
2017-08-07 14:26 ` [PATCH v5 net-next 01/12] bpf/verifier: rework value tracking Edward Cree
2017-08-07 14:26 ` [PATCH v5 net-next 02/12] bpf/verifier: track signed and unsigned min/max values Edward Cree
2017-08-07 14:26 ` [PATCH v5 net-next 03/12] bpf/verifier: more concise register state logs for constant var_off Edward Cree
2017-08-07 14:27 ` [PATCH v5 net-next 04/12] selftests/bpf: change test_verifier expectations Edward Cree
2017-08-07 14:27 ` [PATCH v5 net-next 05/12] selftests/bpf: rewrite test_align Edward Cree
2017-08-07 14:28 ` Edward Cree [this message]
2017-08-07 14:28 ` [PATCH v5 net-next 07/12] selftests/bpf: add test for bogus operations on pointers Edward Cree
2017-08-07 14:29 ` [PATCH v5 net-next 08/12] selftests/bpf: don't try to access past MAX_PACKET_OFF in test_verifier Edward Cree
2017-08-07 14:29 ` [PATCH v5 net-next 09/12] selftests/bpf: add tests for subtraction & negative numbers Edward Cree
2017-08-07 14:29 ` [PATCH v5 net-next 10/12] selftests/bpf: variable offset negative tests Edward Cree
2017-08-07 14:30 ` [PATCH v5 net-next 11/12] Documentation: describe the new eBPF verifier value tracking behaviour Edward Cree
2017-08-07 14:30 ` [PATCH v5 net-next 12/12] bpf/verifier: increase complexity limit to 128k Edward Cree
2017-08-08  0:46 ` [PATCH v5 net-next 00/12] bpf: rewrite value tracking in verifier Daniel Borkmann
2017-08-09  0:51   ` David Miller

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=a56184eb-cb65-7ca8-8a05-46160ff39c2e@solarflare.com \
    --to=ecree@solarflare.com \
    --cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
    --cc=ast@fb.com \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=iovisor-dev@lists.iovisor.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).