From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
To: <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: <daniel@iogearbox.net>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
<bpf@vger.kernel.org>, <kernel-team@fb.com>
Subject: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 2/9] selftests/bpf: fix tests due to const spill/fill
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2019 12:12:18 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190615191225.2409862-3-ast@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190615191225.2409862-1-ast@kernel.org>
fix tests that incorrectly assumed that the verifier
cannot track constants through stack.
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>
---
.../bpf/verifier/direct_packet_access.c | 3 +-
.../bpf/verifier/helper_access_var_len.c | 28 ++++++++++---------
2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/direct_packet_access.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/direct_packet_access.c
index d5c596fdc4b9..2c5fbe7bcd27 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/direct_packet_access.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/direct_packet_access.c
@@ -511,7 +511,8 @@
offsetof(struct __sk_buff, data)),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_1,
offsetof(struct __sk_buff, data_end)),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0xffffffff),
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1,
+ offsetof(struct __sk_buff, mark)),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -8),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_10, -8),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_0, 0xffff),
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/helper_access_var_len.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/helper_access_var_len.c
index 1f39d845c64f..67ab12410050 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/helper_access_var_len.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/helper_access_var_len.c
@@ -29,9 +29,9 @@
{
"helper access to variable memory: stack, bitwise AND, zero included",
.insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 8),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -64),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 16),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, -128),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, -128),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_2, 64),
@@ -46,9 +46,9 @@
{
"helper access to variable memory: stack, bitwise AND + JMP, wrong max",
.insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 8),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -64),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 16),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, -128),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, -128),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_2, 65),
@@ -122,9 +122,9 @@
{
"helper access to variable memory: stack, JMP, bounds + offset",
.insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 8),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -64),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 16),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, -128),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, -128),
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_2, 64, 5),
@@ -143,9 +143,9 @@
{
"helper access to variable memory: stack, JMP, wrong max",
.insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 8),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -64),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 16),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, -128),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, -128),
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_2, 65, 4),
@@ -163,9 +163,9 @@
{
"helper access to variable memory: stack, JMP, no max check",
.insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 8),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -64),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 16),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, -128),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, -128),
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_4, 0),
@@ -183,9 +183,9 @@
{
"helper access to variable memory: stack, JMP, no min check",
.insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 8),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -64),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 16),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, -128),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, -128),
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_2, 64, 3),
@@ -201,9 +201,9 @@
{
"helper access to variable memory: stack, JMP (signed), no min check",
.insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 8),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -64),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 16),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, -128),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, -128),
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGT, BPF_REG_2, 64, 3),
@@ -244,6 +244,7 @@
{
"helper access to variable memory: map, JMP, wrong max",
.insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1, 8),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, 0, 0),
@@ -251,7 +252,7 @@
BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 10),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, sizeof(struct test_val)),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_6),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_2, -128),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10, -128),
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGT, BPF_REG_2, sizeof(struct test_val) + 1, 4),
@@ -262,7 +263,7 @@
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
- .fixup_map_hash_48b = { 3 },
+ .fixup_map_hash_48b = { 4 },
.errstr = "invalid access to map value, value_size=48 off=0 size=49",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACEPOINT,
@@ -296,6 +297,7 @@
{
"helper access to variable memory: map adjusted, JMP, wrong max",
.insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1, 8),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, 0, 0),
@@ -304,7 +306,7 @@
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 11),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 20),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, sizeof(struct test_val)),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_6),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_2, -128),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10, -128),
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGT, BPF_REG_2, sizeof(struct test_val) - 19, 4),
@@ -315,7 +317,7 @@
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
- .fixup_map_hash_48b = { 3 },
+ .fixup_map_hash_48b = { 4 },
.errstr = "R1 min value is outside of the array range",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACEPOINT,
@@ -337,8 +339,8 @@
{
"helper access to variable memory: size > 0 not allowed on NULL (ARG_PTR_TO_MEM_OR_NULL)",
.insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 0),
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 0),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 1),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_2, -128),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10, -128),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_2, 64),
@@ -562,6 +564,7 @@
{
"helper access to variable memory: 8 bytes leak",
.insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 8),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -64),
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
@@ -572,7 +575,6 @@
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -24),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -16),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -8),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 1),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_2, -128),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10, -128),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_2, 63),
--
2.20.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-15 19:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-15 19:12 [PATCH v3 bpf-next 0/9] bpf: bounded loops and other features Alexei Starovoitov
2019-06-15 19:12 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 1/9] bpf: track spill/fill of constants Alexei Starovoitov
2019-06-20 0:24 ` John Fastabend
2019-06-20 3:35 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-06-20 5:04 ` John Fastabend
2019-06-20 15:37 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-06-15 19:12 ` Alexei Starovoitov [this message]
2019-06-20 5:40 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 2/9] selftests/bpf: fix tests due to const spill/fill John Fastabend
2019-06-15 19:12 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 3/9] bpf: extend is_branch_taken to registers Alexei Starovoitov
2019-06-20 6:01 ` John Fastabend
2019-06-15 19:12 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 4/9] bpf: introduce bounded loops Alexei Starovoitov
2019-06-20 9:59 ` [bpf] 9fe4f05d33: kernel_selftests.bpf.test_verifier.fail kernel test robot
2019-06-15 19:12 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 5/9] bpf: fix callees pruning callers Alexei Starovoitov
2019-06-15 19:12 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 6/9] selftests/bpf: fix tests Alexei Starovoitov
2019-06-15 19:12 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 7/9] selftests/bpf: add basic verifier tests for loops Alexei Starovoitov
2019-06-15 19:12 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 8/9] selftests/bpf: add realistic loop tests Alexei Starovoitov
2019-06-15 19:12 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 9/9] bpf: precise scalar_value tracking Alexei Starovoitov
2019-06-17 17:20 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2019-06-17 16:39 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 0/9] bpf: bounded loops and other features Andrii Nakryiko
2019-06-17 18:57 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-06-17 19:06 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2019-06-18 14:05 ` Paul Chaignon
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=20190615191225.2409862-3-ast@kernel.org \
--to=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--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).