* [PATCH 5.10 0/6] bpf: selftests: fix verifier selftests
@ 2021-08-04 17:09 Ovidiu Panait
2021-08-04 17:09 ` [PATCH 5.10 1/6] selftests/bpf: Add a test for ptr_to_map_value on stack for helper access Ovidiu Panait
` (6 more replies)
0 siblings, 7 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Ovidiu Panait @ 2021-08-04 17:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: stable; +Cc: bpf, daniel
This patchseries fixes all failing bpf verifier selftests:
root@intel-x86-64:~# ./test_verifier
#1149/p XDP pkt read, pkt_meta' <= pkt_data, bad access 2 OK
#1150/p XDP pkt read, pkt_data <= pkt_meta', good access OK
#1151/p XDP pkt read, pkt_data <= pkt_meta', bad access 1 OK
#1152/p XDP pkt read, pkt_data <= pkt_meta', bad access 2 OK
Summary: 1691 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
Andrei Matei (2):
selftest/bpf: Adjust expected verifier errors
selftest/bpf: Verifier tests for var-off access
Daniel Borkmann (3):
bpf, selftests: Adjust few selftest result_unpriv outcomes
bpf: Update selftests to reflect new error states
bpf, selftests: Adjust few selftest outcomes wrt unreachable code
Yonghong Song (1):
selftests/bpf: Add a test for ptr_to_map_value on stack for helper
access
.../selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_task.c | 3 +-
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 2 +-
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/and.c | 2 +
.../selftests/bpf/verifier/basic_stack.c | 2 +-
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds.c | 19 ++-
.../selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds_deduction.c | 21 ++--
.../bpf/verifier/bounds_mix_sign_unsign.c | 13 --
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c | 4 +-
.../testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/const_or.c | 4 +-
.../selftests/bpf/verifier/dead_code.c | 2 +
.../bpf/verifier/helper_access_var_len.c | 12 +-
.../testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/int_ptr.c | 6 +-
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/jmp32.c | 22 ++++
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/jset.c | 10 +-
.../testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/map_ptr.c | 4 +-
.../selftests/bpf/verifier/raw_stack.c | 10 +-
.../selftests/bpf/verifier/stack_ptr.c | 22 ++--
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c | 9 +-
.../selftests/bpf/verifier/value_ptr_arith.c | 17 +--
.../testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/var_off.c | 115 ++++++++++++++++--
20 files changed, 208 insertions(+), 91 deletions(-)
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 5.10 1/6] selftests/bpf: Add a test for ptr_to_map_value on stack for helper access
2021-08-04 17:09 [PATCH 5.10 0/6] bpf: selftests: fix verifier selftests Ovidiu Panait
@ 2021-08-04 17:09 ` Ovidiu Panait
2021-08-04 17:09 ` [PATCH 5.10 2/6] selftest/bpf: Adjust expected verifier errors Ovidiu Panait
` (5 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Ovidiu Panait @ 2021-08-04 17:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: stable; +Cc: bpf, daniel
From: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
commit b4b638c36b7e7acd847b9c4b9c80f268e45ea30c upstream
Change bpf_iter_task.c such that pointer to map_value may appear
on the stack for bpf_seq_printf() to access. Without previous
verifier patch, the bpf_iter test will fail.
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201210013350.943985-1-yhs@fb.com
Signed-off-by: Ovidiu Panait <ovidiu.panait@windriver.com>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_task.c | 3 ++-
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c | 5 +++--
2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_task.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_task.c
index 4983087852a0..b7f32c160f4e 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_task.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_task.c
@@ -11,9 +11,10 @@ int dump_task(struct bpf_iter__task *ctx)
{
struct seq_file *seq = ctx->meta->seq;
struct task_struct *task = ctx->task;
+ static char info[] = " === END ===";
if (task == (void *)0) {
- BPF_SEQ_PRINTF(seq, " === END ===\n");
+ BPF_SEQ_PRINTF(seq, "%s\n", info);
return 0;
}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c
index 0d621c841db1..2df9871b169d 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c
@@ -108,8 +108,9 @@
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
- .errstr = "invalid indirect read from stack off -8+0 size 8",
- .result = REJECT,
+ .errstr_unpriv = "invalid indirect read from stack off -8+0 size 8",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
+ .result = ACCEPT,
},
{
"unpriv: mangle pointer on stack 1",
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 5.10 2/6] selftest/bpf: Adjust expected verifier errors
2021-08-04 17:09 [PATCH 5.10 0/6] bpf: selftests: fix verifier selftests Ovidiu Panait
2021-08-04 17:09 ` [PATCH 5.10 1/6] selftests/bpf: Add a test for ptr_to_map_value on stack for helper access Ovidiu Panait
@ 2021-08-04 17:09 ` Ovidiu Panait
2021-08-04 17:09 ` [PATCH 5.10 3/6] bpf, selftests: Adjust few selftest result_unpriv outcomes Ovidiu Panait
` (4 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Ovidiu Panait @ 2021-08-04 17:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: stable; +Cc: bpf, daniel
From: Andrei Matei <andreimatei1@gmail.com>
commit a680cb3d8e3f4f84205720b90c926579d04eedb6 upstream
The verifier errors around stack accesses have changed slightly in the
previous commit (generally for the better).
Signed-off-by: Andrei Matei <andreimatei1@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210207011027.676572-3-andreimatei1@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Ovidiu Panait <ovidiu.panait@windriver.com>
---
.../selftests/bpf/verifier/basic_stack.c | 2 +-
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c | 4 ++--
.../testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/const_or.c | 4 ++--
.../bpf/verifier/helper_access_var_len.c | 12 +++++-----
.../testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/int_ptr.c | 6 ++---
.../selftests/bpf/verifier/raw_stack.c | 10 ++++-----
.../selftests/bpf/verifier/stack_ptr.c | 22 +++++++++++--------
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c | 2 +-
.../testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/var_off.c | 16 +++++++-------
9 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic_stack.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic_stack.c
index b56f8117c09d..f995777dddb3 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic_stack.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/basic_stack.c
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, 8, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
- .errstr = "invalid stack",
+ .errstr = "invalid write to stack",
.result = REJECT,
},
{
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c
index c4f5d909e58a..eb888c8479c3 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c
@@ -1228,7 +1228,7 @@
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 23 },
.result = REJECT,
- .errstr = "invalid read from stack off -16+0 size 8",
+ .errstr = "invalid read from stack R7 off=-16 size=8",
},
{
"calls: two calls that receive map_value via arg=ptr_stack_of_caller. test1",
@@ -1958,7 +1958,7 @@
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.fixup_map_hash_48b = { 6 },
- .errstr = "invalid indirect read from stack off -8+0 size 8",
+ .errstr = "invalid indirect read from stack R2 off -8+0 size 8",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
},
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/const_or.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/const_or.c
index 6c214c58e8d4..0719b0ddec04 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/const_or.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/const_or.c
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_probe_read_kernel),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
- .errstr = "invalid stack type R1 off=-48 access_size=58",
+ .errstr = "invalid indirect access to stack R1 off=-48 size=58",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACEPOINT,
},
@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@
BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_probe_read_kernel),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
- .errstr = "invalid stack type R1 off=-48 access_size=58",
+ .errstr = "invalid indirect access to stack R1 off=-48 size=58",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACEPOINT,
},
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 87c4e7900083..0ab7f1dfc97a 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/helper_access_var_len.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/helper_access_var_len.c
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@
BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_probe_read_kernel),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
- .errstr = "invalid indirect read from stack off -64+0 size 64",
+ .errstr = "invalid indirect read from stack R1 off -64+0 size 64",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACEPOINT,
},
@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
- .errstr = "invalid stack type R1 off=-64 access_size=65",
+ .errstr = "invalid indirect access to stack R1 off=-64 size=65",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACEPOINT,
},
@@ -136,7 +136,7 @@
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
- .errstr = "invalid stack type R1 off=-64 access_size=65",
+ .errstr = "invalid indirect access to stack R1 off=-64 size=65",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACEPOINT,
},
@@ -156,7 +156,7 @@
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
- .errstr = "invalid stack type R1 off=-64 access_size=65",
+ .errstr = "invalid indirect access to stack R1 off=-64 size=65",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACEPOINT,
},
@@ -194,7 +194,7 @@
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
- .errstr = "invalid indirect read from stack off -64+0 size 64",
+ .errstr = "invalid indirect read from stack R1 off -64+0 size 64",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACEPOINT,
},
@@ -584,7 +584,7 @@
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10, -16),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
- .errstr = "invalid indirect read from stack off -64+32 size 64",
+ .errstr = "invalid indirect read from stack R1 off -64+32 size 64",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACEPOINT,
},
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/int_ptr.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/int_ptr.c
index ca3b4729df66..070893fb2900 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/int_ptr.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/int_ptr.c
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@
},
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SYSCTL,
- .errstr = "invalid indirect read from stack off -16+0 size 8",
+ .errstr = "invalid indirect read from stack R4 off -16+0 size 8",
},
{
"ARG_PTR_TO_LONG half-uninitialized",
@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@
},
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SYSCTL,
- .errstr = "invalid indirect read from stack off -16+4 size 8",
+ .errstr = "invalid indirect read from stack R4 off -16+4 size 8",
},
{
"ARG_PTR_TO_LONG misaligned",
@@ -125,7 +125,7 @@
},
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SYSCTL,
- .errstr = "invalid stack type R4 off=-4 access_size=8",
+ .errstr = "invalid indirect access to stack R4 off=-4 size=8",
},
{
"ARG_PTR_TO_LONG initialized",
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/raw_stack.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/raw_stack.c
index 193d9e87d5a9..cc8e8c3cdc03 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/raw_stack.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/raw_stack.c
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.result = REJECT,
- .errstr = "invalid read from stack off -8+0 size 8",
+ .errstr = "invalid read from stack R6 off=-8 size=8",
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
},
{
@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.result = REJECT,
- .errstr = "invalid stack type R3",
+ .errstr = "invalid zero-sized read",
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
},
{
@@ -205,7 +205,7 @@
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.result = REJECT,
- .errstr = "invalid stack type R3 off=-513 access_size=8",
+ .errstr = "invalid indirect access to stack R3 off=-513 size=8",
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
},
{
@@ -221,7 +221,7 @@
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.result = REJECT,
- .errstr = "invalid stack type R3 off=-1 access_size=8",
+ .errstr = "invalid indirect access to stack R3 off=-1 size=8",
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
},
{
@@ -285,7 +285,7 @@
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.result = REJECT,
- .errstr = "invalid stack type R3 off=-512 access_size=0",
+ .errstr = "invalid zero-sized read",
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
},
{
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/stack_ptr.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/stack_ptr.c
index 8bfeb77c60bd..07eaa04412ae 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/stack_ptr.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/stack_ptr.c
@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.result = REJECT,
- .errstr = "invalid stack off=-79992 size=8",
+ .errstr = "invalid write to stack R1 off=-79992 size=8",
.errstr_unpriv = "R1 stack pointer arithmetic goes out of range",
},
{
@@ -57,7 +57,7 @@
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.result = REJECT,
- .errstr = "invalid stack off=0 size=8",
+ .errstr = "invalid write to stack R1 off=0 size=8",
},
{
"PTR_TO_STACK check high 1",
@@ -106,7 +106,7 @@
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.errstr_unpriv = "R1 stack pointer arithmetic goes out of range",
- .errstr = "invalid stack off=0 size=1",
+ .errstr = "invalid write to stack R1 off=0 size=1",
.result = REJECT,
},
{
@@ -119,7 +119,8 @@
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.result = REJECT,
- .errstr = "invalid stack off",
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R1 stack pointer arithmetic goes out of range",
+ .errstr = "invalid write to stack R1",
},
{
"PTR_TO_STACK check high 6",
@@ -131,7 +132,8 @@
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.result = REJECT,
- .errstr = "invalid stack off",
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R1 stack pointer arithmetic goes out of range",
+ .errstr = "invalid write to stack",
},
{
"PTR_TO_STACK check high 7",
@@ -183,7 +185,7 @@
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.errstr_unpriv = "R1 stack pointer arithmetic goes out of range",
- .errstr = "invalid stack off=-513 size=1",
+ .errstr = "invalid write to stack R1 off=-513 size=1",
.result = REJECT,
},
{
@@ -208,7 +210,8 @@
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.result = REJECT,
- .errstr = "invalid stack off",
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R1 stack pointer arithmetic goes out of range",
+ .errstr = "invalid write to stack",
},
{
"PTR_TO_STACK check low 6",
@@ -220,7 +223,8 @@
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.result = REJECT,
- .errstr = "invalid stack off",
+ .errstr = "invalid write to stack",
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R1 stack pointer arithmetic goes out of range",
},
{
"PTR_TO_STACK check low 7",
@@ -292,7 +296,7 @@
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.result_unpriv = REJECT,
- .errstr_unpriv = "invalid stack off=0 size=1",
+ .errstr_unpriv = "invalid write to stack R1 off=0 size=1",
.result = ACCEPT,
.retval = 42,
},
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c
index 2df9871b169d..c30afb09ab6a 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c
@@ -108,7 +108,7 @@
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
- .errstr_unpriv = "invalid indirect read from stack off -8+0 size 8",
+ .errstr_unpriv = "invalid indirect read from stack R2 off -8+0 size 8",
.result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
},
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/var_off.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/var_off.c
index 8504ac937809..49b78a1a261b 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/var_off.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/var_off.c
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_LWT_IN,
},
{
- "variable-offset stack access",
+ "variable-offset stack read, priv vs unpriv",
.insns = {
/* Fill the top 8 bytes of the stack */
BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0),
@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
- .errstr = "R4 unbounded indirect variable offset stack access",
+ .errstr = "invalid unbounded variable-offset indirect access to stack R4",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCK_OPS,
},
@@ -88,7 +88,7 @@
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 5 },
- .errstr = "R2 max value is outside of stack bound",
+ .errstr = "invalid variable-offset indirect access to stack R2",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_LWT_IN,
},
@@ -113,7 +113,7 @@
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 5 },
- .errstr = "R2 min value is outside of stack bound",
+ .errstr = "invalid variable-offset indirect access to stack R2",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_LWT_IN,
},
@@ -138,7 +138,7 @@
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 5 },
- .errstr = "invalid indirect read from stack var_off",
+ .errstr = "invalid indirect read from stack R2 var_off",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_LWT_IN,
},
@@ -163,7 +163,7 @@
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 5 },
- .errstr = "invalid indirect read from stack var_off",
+ .errstr = "invalid indirect read from stack R2 var_off",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_LWT_IN,
},
@@ -189,7 +189,7 @@
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 6 },
- .errstr_unpriv = "R2 stack pointer arithmetic goes out of range, prohibited for !root",
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R2 variable stack access prohibited for !root",
.result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SKB,
@@ -217,7 +217,7 @@
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
- .errstr = "invalid indirect read from stack var_off",
+ .errstr = "invalid indirect read from stack R4 var_off",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCK_OPS,
},
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 5.10 3/6] bpf, selftests: Adjust few selftest result_unpriv outcomes
2021-08-04 17:09 [PATCH 5.10 0/6] bpf: selftests: fix verifier selftests Ovidiu Panait
2021-08-04 17:09 ` [PATCH 5.10 1/6] selftests/bpf: Add a test for ptr_to_map_value on stack for helper access Ovidiu Panait
2021-08-04 17:09 ` [PATCH 5.10 2/6] selftest/bpf: Adjust expected verifier errors Ovidiu Panait
@ 2021-08-04 17:09 ` Ovidiu Panait
2021-08-04 17:09 ` [PATCH 5.10 4/6] bpf: Update selftests to reflect new error states Ovidiu Panait
` (3 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Ovidiu Panait @ 2021-08-04 17:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: stable; +Cc: bpf, daniel
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
commit 1bad6fd52be4ce12d207e2820ceb0f29ab31fc53 upstream
Given we don't need to simulate the speculative domain for registers with
immediates anymore since the verifier uses direct imm-based rewrites instead
of having to mask, we can also lift a few cases that were previously rejected.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Ovidiu Panait <ovidiu.panait@windriver.com>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/stack_ptr.c | 2 --
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/value_ptr_arith.c | 8 --------
2 files changed, 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/stack_ptr.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/stack_ptr.c
index 07eaa04412ae..8ab94d65f3d5 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/stack_ptr.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/stack_ptr.c
@@ -295,8 +295,6 @@
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
- .result_unpriv = REJECT,
- .errstr_unpriv = "invalid write to stack R1 off=0 size=1",
.result = ACCEPT,
.retval = 42,
},
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/value_ptr_arith.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/value_ptr_arith.c
index feb91266db39..3868fbea316f 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/value_ptr_arith.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/value_ptr_arith.c
@@ -302,8 +302,6 @@
},
.fixup_map_array_48b = { 3 },
.result = ACCEPT,
- .result_unpriv = REJECT,
- .errstr_unpriv = "R0 pointer arithmetic of map value goes out of range",
.retval = 1,
},
{
@@ -373,8 +371,6 @@
},
.fixup_map_array_48b = { 3 },
.result = ACCEPT,
- .result_unpriv = REJECT,
- .errstr_unpriv = "R0 pointer arithmetic of map value goes out of range",
.retval = 1,
},
{
@@ -474,8 +470,6 @@
},
.fixup_map_array_48b = { 3 },
.result = ACCEPT,
- .result_unpriv = REJECT,
- .errstr_unpriv = "R0 pointer arithmetic of map value goes out of range",
.retval = 1,
},
{
@@ -768,8 +762,6 @@
},
.fixup_map_array_48b = { 3 },
.result = ACCEPT,
- .result_unpriv = REJECT,
- .errstr_unpriv = "R0 pointer arithmetic of map value goes out of range",
.retval = 1,
},
{
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 5.10 4/6] bpf: Update selftests to reflect new error states
2021-08-04 17:09 [PATCH 5.10 0/6] bpf: selftests: fix verifier selftests Ovidiu Panait
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2021-08-04 17:09 ` [PATCH 5.10 3/6] bpf, selftests: Adjust few selftest result_unpriv outcomes Ovidiu Panait
@ 2021-08-04 17:09 ` Ovidiu Panait
2021-08-04 17:09 ` [PATCH 5.10 5/6] bpf, selftests: Adjust few selftest outcomes wrt unreachable code Ovidiu Panait
` (2 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Ovidiu Panait @ 2021-08-04 17:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: stable; +Cc: bpf, daniel
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
commit d7a5091351756d0ae8e63134313c455624e36a13 upstream
Update various selftest error messages:
* The 'Rx tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types'
is reworked into more specific/differentiated error messages for better
guidance.
* The change into 'value -4294967168 makes map_value pointer be out of
bounds' is due to moving the mixed bounds check into the speculation
handling and thus occuring slightly later than above mentioned sanity
check.
* The change into 'math between map_value pointer and register with
unbounded min value' is similarly due to register sanity check coming
before the mixed bounds check.
* The case of 'map access: known scalar += value_ptr from different maps'
now loads fine given masks are the same from the different paths (despite
max map value size being different).
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Reviewed-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Ovidiu Panait <ovidiu.panait@windriver.com>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds.c | 5 -----
.../selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds_deduction.c | 21 ++++++++++---------
.../bpf/verifier/bounds_mix_sign_unsign.c | 13 ------------
.../testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/map_ptr.c | 4 ++--
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c | 2 +-
.../selftests/bpf/verifier/value_ptr_arith.c | 6 ++----
6 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds.c
index 57ed67b86074..8a1caf46ffbc 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds.c
@@ -261,8 +261,6 @@
},
.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
/* not actually fully unbounded, but the bound is very high */
- .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds, pointer arithmetic with it prohibited for !root",
- .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.errstr = "value -4294967168 makes map_value pointer be out of bounds",
.result = REJECT,
},
@@ -298,9 +296,6 @@
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
- /* not actually fully unbounded, but the bound is very high */
- .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds, pointer arithmetic with it prohibited for !root",
- .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.errstr = "value -4294967168 makes map_value pointer be out of bounds",
.result = REJECT,
},
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds_deduction.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds_deduction.c
index c162498a64fc..91869aea6d64 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds_deduction.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds_deduction.c
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
- .errstr_unpriv = "R0 tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types",
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has pointer with unsupported alu operation",
.errstr = "R0 tried to subtract pointer from scalar",
.result = REJECT,
},
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@
BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
- .errstr_unpriv = "R1 tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types",
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has pointer with unsupported alu operation",
.result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
.retval = 1,
@@ -34,22 +34,23 @@
BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
- .errstr_unpriv = "R0 tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types",
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has pointer with unsupported alu operation",
.errstr = "R0 tried to subtract pointer from scalar",
.result = REJECT,
},
{
"check deducing bounds from const, 4",
.insns = {
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1),
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSLE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
- BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0),
+ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
- .errstr_unpriv = "R1 tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types",
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R6 has pointer with unsupported alu operation",
.result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
},
@@ -61,7 +62,7 @@
BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
- .errstr_unpriv = "R0 tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types",
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has pointer with unsupported alu operation",
.errstr = "R0 tried to subtract pointer from scalar",
.result = REJECT,
},
@@ -74,7 +75,7 @@
BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
- .errstr_unpriv = "R0 tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types",
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has pointer with unsupported alu operation",
.errstr = "R0 tried to subtract pointer from scalar",
.result = REJECT,
},
@@ -88,7 +89,7 @@
offsetof(struct __sk_buff, mark)),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
- .errstr_unpriv = "R1 tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types",
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has pointer with unsupported alu operation",
.errstr = "dereference of modified ctx ptr",
.result = REJECT,
.flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
@@ -103,7 +104,7 @@
offsetof(struct __sk_buff, mark)),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
- .errstr_unpriv = "R1 tried to add from different maps, paths, or prohibited types",
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has pointer with unsupported alu operation",
.errstr = "dereference of modified ctx ptr",
.result = REJECT,
.flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
@@ -116,7 +117,7 @@
BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
- .errstr_unpriv = "R0 tried to sub from different maps, paths, or prohibited types",
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has pointer with unsupported alu operation",
.errstr = "R0 tried to subtract pointer from scalar",
.result = REJECT,
},
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds_mix_sign_unsign.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds_mix_sign_unsign.c
index 9baca7a75c42..c2aa6f26738b 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds_mix_sign_unsign.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds_mix_sign_unsign.c
@@ -19,7 +19,6 @@
},
.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
.errstr = "unbounded min value",
- .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds",
.result = REJECT,
},
{
@@ -43,7 +42,6 @@
},
.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
.errstr = "unbounded min value",
- .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds",
.result = REJECT,
},
{
@@ -69,7 +67,6 @@
},
.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
.errstr = "unbounded min value",
- .errstr_unpriv = "R8 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds",
.result = REJECT,
},
{
@@ -94,7 +91,6 @@
},
.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
.errstr = "unbounded min value",
- .errstr_unpriv = "R8 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds",
.result = REJECT,
},
{
@@ -141,7 +137,6 @@
},
.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
.errstr = "unbounded min value",
- .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds",
.result = REJECT,
},
{
@@ -210,7 +205,6 @@
},
.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
.errstr = "unbounded min value",
- .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds",
.result = REJECT,
},
{
@@ -260,7 +254,6 @@
},
.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
.errstr = "unbounded min value",
- .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds",
.result = REJECT,
},
{
@@ -287,7 +280,6 @@
},
.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
.errstr = "unbounded min value",
- .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds",
.result = REJECT,
},
{
@@ -313,7 +305,6 @@
},
.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
.errstr = "unbounded min value",
- .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds",
.result = REJECT,
},
{
@@ -342,7 +333,6 @@
},
.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
.errstr = "unbounded min value",
- .errstr_unpriv = "R7 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds",
.result = REJECT,
},
{
@@ -372,7 +362,6 @@
},
.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 4 },
.errstr = "unbounded min value",
- .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds",
.result = REJECT,
},
{
@@ -400,7 +389,5 @@
},
.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
.errstr = "unbounded min value",
- .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has unknown scalar with mixed signed bounds",
.result = REJECT,
- .result_unpriv = REJECT,
},
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/map_ptr.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/map_ptr.c
index 92a1dc8e1746..2f551cb24cf7 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/map_ptr.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/map_ptr.c
@@ -75,7 +75,7 @@
},
.fixup_map_hash_16b = { 4 },
.result_unpriv = REJECT,
- .errstr_unpriv = "R1 tried to add from different maps, paths, or prohibited types",
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R1 has pointer with unsupported alu operation",
.result = ACCEPT,
},
{
@@ -93,6 +93,6 @@
},
.fixup_map_hash_16b = { 4 },
.result_unpriv = REJECT,
- .errstr_unpriv = "R1 tried to add from different maps, paths, or prohibited types",
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R0 has pointer with unsupported alu operation",
.result = ACCEPT,
},
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c
index c30afb09ab6a..c7854d784a5d 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c
@@ -504,7 +504,7 @@
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, -8),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
- .errstr_unpriv = "R1 tried to add from different maps, paths, or prohibited types",
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R1 stack pointer arithmetic goes out of range",
.result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
},
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/value_ptr_arith.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/value_ptr_arith.c
index 3868fbea316f..7ae2859d495c 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/value_ptr_arith.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/value_ptr_arith.c
@@ -21,8 +21,6 @@
.fixup_map_hash_16b = { 5 },
.fixup_map_array_48b = { 8 },
.result = ACCEPT,
- .result_unpriv = REJECT,
- .errstr_unpriv = "R1 tried to add from different maps",
.retval = 1,
},
{
@@ -122,7 +120,7 @@
.fixup_map_array_48b = { 1 },
.result = ACCEPT,
.result_unpriv = REJECT,
- .errstr_unpriv = "R2 tried to add from different pointers or scalars",
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R2 tried to add from different maps, paths or scalars",
.retval = 0,
},
{
@@ -169,7 +167,7 @@
.fixup_map_array_48b = { 1 },
.result = ACCEPT,
.result_unpriv = REJECT,
- .errstr_unpriv = "R2 tried to add from different maps, paths, or prohibited types",
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R2 tried to add from different maps, paths or scalars",
.retval = 0,
},
{
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 5.10 5/6] bpf, selftests: Adjust few selftest outcomes wrt unreachable code
2021-08-04 17:09 [PATCH 5.10 0/6] bpf: selftests: fix verifier selftests Ovidiu Panait
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2021-08-04 17:09 ` [PATCH 5.10 4/6] bpf: Update selftests to reflect new error states Ovidiu Panait
@ 2021-08-04 17:09 ` Ovidiu Panait
2021-08-04 17:09 ` [PATCH 5.10 6/6] selftest/bpf: Verifier tests for var-off access Ovidiu Panait
2021-08-06 8:04 ` [PATCH 5.10 0/6] bpf: selftests: fix verifier selftests Greg KH
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Ovidiu Panait @ 2021-08-04 17:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: stable; +Cc: bpf, daniel
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
commit 973377ffe8148180b2651825b92ae91988141b05 upstream
In almost all cases from test_verifier that have been changed in here, we've
had an unreachable path with a load from a register which has an invalid
address on purpose. This was basically to make sure that we never walk this
path and to have the verifier complain if it would otherwise. Change it to
match on the right error for unprivileged given we now test these paths
under speculative execution.
There's one case where we match on exact # of insns_processed. Due to the
extra path, this will of course mismatch on unprivileged. Thus, restrict the
test->insn_processed check to privileged-only.
In one other case, we result in a 'pointer comparison prohibited' error. This
is similarly due to verifying an 'invalid' branch where we end up with a value
pointer on one side of the comparison.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Reviewed-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Ovidiu Panait <ovidiu.panait@windriver.com>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 2 +-
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/and.c | 2 ++
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds.c | 14 ++++++++++++
.../selftests/bpf/verifier/dead_code.c | 2 ++
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/jmp32.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/jset.c | 10 +++++----
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c | 2 ++
.../selftests/bpf/verifier/value_ptr_arith.c | 7 +++---
8 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
index 9be395d9dc64..a4c55fcb0e7b 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@ -1036,7 +1036,7 @@ static void do_test_single(struct bpf_test *test, bool unpriv,
}
}
- if (test->insn_processed) {
+ if (!unpriv && test->insn_processed) {
uint32_t insn_processed;
char *proc;
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/and.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/and.c
index ca8fdb1b3f01..7d7ebee5cc7a 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/and.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/and.c
@@ -61,6 +61,8 @@
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R1 !read_ok",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
.retval = 0
},
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds.c
index 8a1caf46ffbc..e061e8799ce2 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds.c
@@ -508,6 +508,8 @@
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, -1),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT
},
{
@@ -528,6 +530,8 @@
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, -1),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT
},
{
@@ -569,6 +573,8 @@
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R0 min value is outside of the allowed memory range",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
.result = ACCEPT,
},
@@ -589,6 +595,8 @@
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R0 min value is outside of the allowed memory range",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
.result = ACCEPT,
},
@@ -609,6 +617,8 @@
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R0 min value is outside of the allowed memory range",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
.result = ACCEPT,
},
@@ -674,6 +684,8 @@
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R0 min value is outside of the allowed memory range",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
.result = ACCEPT,
},
@@ -695,6 +707,8 @@
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R0 min value is outside of the allowed memory range",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 },
.result = ACCEPT,
},
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/dead_code.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/dead_code.c
index 5cf361d8eb1c..721ec9391be5 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/dead_code.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/dead_code.c
@@ -8,6 +8,8 @@
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JGE, BPF_REG_0, 10, -4),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R9 !read_ok",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
.retval = 7,
},
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/jmp32.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/jmp32.c
index bd5cae4a7f73..1c857b2fbdf0 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/jmp32.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/jmp32.c
@@ -87,6 +87,8 @@
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_8, BPF_REG_9, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R9 !read_ok",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
},
{
@@ -150,6 +152,8 @@
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_8, BPF_REG_9, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R9 !read_ok",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
},
{
@@ -213,6 +217,8 @@
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_8, BPF_REG_9, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R9 !read_ok",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
},
{
@@ -280,6 +286,8 @@
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
.retval = 2,
},
@@ -348,6 +356,8 @@
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
.retval = 2,
},
@@ -416,6 +426,8 @@
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
.retval = 2,
},
@@ -484,6 +496,8 @@
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
.retval = 2,
},
@@ -552,6 +566,8 @@
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
.retval = 2,
},
@@ -620,6 +636,8 @@
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
.retval = 2,
},
@@ -688,6 +706,8 @@
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
.retval = 2,
},
@@ -756,6 +776,8 @@
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
.retval = 2,
},
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/jset.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/jset.c
index 8dcd4e0383d5..11fc68da735e 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/jset.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/jset.c
@@ -82,8 +82,8 @@
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER,
- .retval_unpriv = 1,
- .result_unpriv = ACCEPT,
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R9 !read_ok",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.retval = 1,
.result = ACCEPT,
},
@@ -141,7 +141,8 @@
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER,
- .result_unpriv = ACCEPT,
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R9 !read_ok",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
},
{
@@ -162,6 +163,7 @@
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER,
- .result_unpriv = ACCEPT,
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R9 !read_ok",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
},
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c
index c7854d784a5d..9dfb68c8c78d 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/unpriv.c
@@ -419,6 +419,8 @@
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_7, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R7 invalid mem access 'inv'",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
.result = ACCEPT,
.retval = 0,
},
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/value_ptr_arith.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/value_ptr_arith.c
index 7ae2859d495c..a3e593ddfafc 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/value_ptr_arith.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/value_ptr_arith.c
@@ -120,7 +120,7 @@
.fixup_map_array_48b = { 1 },
.result = ACCEPT,
.result_unpriv = REJECT,
- .errstr_unpriv = "R2 tried to add from different maps, paths or scalars",
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R2 pointer comparison prohibited",
.retval = 0,
},
{
@@ -159,7 +159,8 @@
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
// fake-dead code; targeted from branch A to
- // prevent dead code sanitization
+ // prevent dead code sanitization, rejected
+ // via branch B however
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
@@ -167,7 +168,7 @@
.fixup_map_array_48b = { 1 },
.result = ACCEPT,
.result_unpriv = REJECT,
- .errstr_unpriv = "R2 tried to add from different maps, paths or scalars",
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'",
.retval = 0,
},
{
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 5.10 6/6] selftest/bpf: Verifier tests for var-off access
2021-08-04 17:09 [PATCH 5.10 0/6] bpf: selftests: fix verifier selftests Ovidiu Panait
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2021-08-04 17:09 ` [PATCH 5.10 5/6] bpf, selftests: Adjust few selftest outcomes wrt unreachable code Ovidiu Panait
@ 2021-08-04 17:09 ` Ovidiu Panait
2021-08-06 8:04 ` [PATCH 5.10 0/6] bpf: selftests: fix verifier selftests Greg KH
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Ovidiu Panait @ 2021-08-04 17:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: stable; +Cc: bpf, daniel
From: Andrei Matei <andreimatei1@gmail.com>
commit 7a22930c4179b51352f2ec9feb35167cbe79afd9 upstream
Add tests for the new functionality - reading and writing to the stack
through a variable-offset pointer.
Signed-off-by: Andrei Matei <andreimatei1@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210207011027.676572-4-andreimatei1@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Ovidiu Panait <ovidiu.panait@windriver.com>
---
.../testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/var_off.c | 99 ++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 97 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/var_off.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/var_off.c
index 49b78a1a261b..eab1f7f56e2f 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/var_off.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/var_off.c
@@ -31,14 +31,109 @@
* we don't know which
*/
BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
- /* dereference it */
+ /* dereference it for a stack read */
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2, 0),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .result = ACCEPT,
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R2 variable stack access prohibited for !root",
+ .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SKB,
+},
+{
+ "variable-offset stack read, uninitialized",
+ .insns = {
+ /* Get an unknown value */
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 0),
+ /* Make it small and 4-byte aligned */
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_2, 4),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_2, 8),
+ /* add it to fp. We now have either fp-4 or fp-8, but
+ * we don't know which
+ */
+ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
+ /* dereference it for a stack read */
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2, 0),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
- .errstr = "variable stack access var_off=(0xfffffffffffffff8; 0x4)",
.result = REJECT,
+ .errstr = "invalid variable-offset read from stack R2",
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_LWT_IN,
},
+{
+ "variable-offset stack write, priv vs unpriv",
+ .insns = {
+ /* Get an unknown value */
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 0),
+ /* Make it small and 8-byte aligned */
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_2, 8),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_2, 16),
+ /* Add it to fp. We now have either fp-8 or fp-16, but
+ * we don't know which
+ */
+ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
+ /* Dereference it for a stack write */
+ BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, 0, 0),
+ /* Now read from the address we just wrote. This shows
+ * that, after a variable-offset write, a priviledged
+ * program can read the slots that were in the range of
+ * that write (even if the verifier doesn't actually know
+ * if the slot being read was really written to or not.
+ */
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_2, 0),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ /* Variable stack access is rejected for unprivileged.
+ */
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R2 variable stack access prohibited for !root",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
+ .result = ACCEPT,
+},
+{
+ "variable-offset stack write clobbers spilled regs",
+ .insns = {
+ /* Dummy instruction; needed because we need to patch the next one
+ * and we can't patch the first instruction.
+ */
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_6, 0),
+ /* Make R0 a map ptr */
+ BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ /* Get an unknown value */
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 0),
+ /* Make it small and 8-byte aligned */
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_2, 8),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_2, 16),
+ /* Add it to fp. We now have either fp-8 or fp-16, but
+ * we don't know which.
+ */
+ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
+ /* Spill R0(map ptr) into stack */
+ BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -8),
+ /* Dereference the unknown value for a stack write */
+ BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, 0, 0),
+ /* Fill the register back into R2 */
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10, -8),
+ /* Try to dereference R2 for a memory load */
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2, 8),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 1 },
+ /* The unpriviledged case is not too interesting; variable
+ * stack access is rejected.
+ */
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R2 variable stack access prohibited for !root",
+ .result_unpriv = REJECT,
+ /* In the priviledged case, dereferencing a spilled-and-then-filled
+ * register is rejected because the previous variable offset stack
+ * write might have overwritten the spilled pointer (i.e. we lose track
+ * of the spilled register when we analyze the write).
+ */
+ .errstr = "R2 invalid mem access 'inv'",
+ .result = REJECT,
+},
{
"indirect variable-offset stack access, unbounded",
.insns = {
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 5.10 0/6] bpf: selftests: fix verifier selftests
2021-08-04 17:09 [PATCH 5.10 0/6] bpf: selftests: fix verifier selftests Ovidiu Panait
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2021-08-04 17:09 ` [PATCH 5.10 6/6] selftest/bpf: Verifier tests for var-off access Ovidiu Panait
@ 2021-08-06 8:04 ` Greg KH
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Greg KH @ 2021-08-06 8:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ovidiu Panait; +Cc: stable, bpf, daniel
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 08:09:11PM +0300, Ovidiu Panait wrote:
> This patchseries fixes all failing bpf verifier selftests:
>
> root@intel-x86-64:~# ./test_verifier
> #1149/p XDP pkt read, pkt_meta' <= pkt_data, bad access 2 OK
> #1150/p XDP pkt read, pkt_data <= pkt_meta', good access OK
> #1151/p XDP pkt read, pkt_data <= pkt_meta', bad access 1 OK
> #1152/p XDP pkt read, pkt_data <= pkt_meta', bad access 2 OK
> Summary: 1691 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
>
>
> Andrei Matei (2):
> selftest/bpf: Adjust expected verifier errors
> selftest/bpf: Verifier tests for var-off access
>
> Daniel Borkmann (3):
> bpf, selftests: Adjust few selftest result_unpriv outcomes
> bpf: Update selftests to reflect new error states
> bpf, selftests: Adjust few selftest outcomes wrt unreachable code
>
> Yonghong Song (1):
> selftests/bpf: Add a test for ptr_to_map_value on stack for helper
> access
Thanks for these, all now queued up.
greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-08-06 8:04 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-08-04 17:09 [PATCH 5.10 0/6] bpf: selftests: fix verifier selftests Ovidiu Panait
2021-08-04 17:09 ` [PATCH 5.10 1/6] selftests/bpf: Add a test for ptr_to_map_value on stack for helper access Ovidiu Panait
2021-08-04 17:09 ` [PATCH 5.10 2/6] selftest/bpf: Adjust expected verifier errors Ovidiu Panait
2021-08-04 17:09 ` [PATCH 5.10 3/6] bpf, selftests: Adjust few selftest result_unpriv outcomes Ovidiu Panait
2021-08-04 17:09 ` [PATCH 5.10 4/6] bpf: Update selftests to reflect new error states Ovidiu Panait
2021-08-04 17:09 ` [PATCH 5.10 5/6] bpf, selftests: Adjust few selftest outcomes wrt unreachable code Ovidiu Panait
2021-08-04 17:09 ` [PATCH 5.10 6/6] selftest/bpf: Verifier tests for var-off access Ovidiu Panait
2021-08-06 8:04 ` [PATCH 5.10 0/6] bpf: selftests: fix verifier selftests Greg KH
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.