From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Ovidiu Panait <ovidiu.panait@windriver.com>
Subject: [PATCH 5.4 08/15] selftests/bpf: Fix test_align verifier log patterns
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2022 20:00:26 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220809175510.601238672@linuxfoundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220809175510.312431319@linuxfoundation.org>
From: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>
commit 5366d2269139ba8eb6a906d73a0819947e3e4e0a upstream.
Commit 294f2fc6da27 ("bpf: Verifer, adjust_scalar_min_max_vals to always
call update_reg_bounds()") changed the way verifier logs some of its state,
adjust the test_align accordingly. Where possible, I tried to not copy-paste
the entire log line and resorted to dropping the last closing brace instead.
Fixes: 294f2fc6da27 ("bpf: Verifer, adjust_scalar_min_max_vals to always call update_reg_bounds()")
Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200515194904.229296-1-sdf@google.com
Signed-off-by: Ovidiu Panait <ovidiu.panait@windriver.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c | 41 +++++++++++++++----------------
1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c
@@ -359,15 +359,15 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
* is still (4n), fixed offset is not changed.
* Also, we create a new reg->id.
*/
- {29, "R5_w=pkt(id=4,off=18,r=0,umax_value=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc))"},
+ {29, "R5_w=pkt(id=4,off=18,r=0,umax_value=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc)"},
/* At the time the word size load is performed from R5,
* its total fixed offset is NET_IP_ALIGN + reg->off (18)
* which is 20. Then the variable offset is (4n), so
* the total offset is 4-byte aligned and meets the
* load's requirements.
*/
- {33, "R4=pkt(id=4,off=22,r=22,umax_value=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc))"},
- {33, "R5=pkt(id=4,off=18,r=22,umax_value=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc))"},
+ {33, "R4=pkt(id=4,off=22,r=22,umax_value=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc)"},
+ {33, "R5=pkt(id=4,off=18,r=22,umax_value=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc)"},
},
},
{
@@ -410,15 +410,15 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
/* Adding 14 makes R6 be (4n+2) */
{9, "R6_w=inv(id=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc))"},
/* Packet pointer has (4n+2) offset */
- {11, "R5_w=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))"},
+ {11, "R5_w=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))"},
+ {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.
*/
@@ -426,15 +426,15 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
/* Added (4n) to packet pointer's (4n+2) var_off, giving
* another (4n+2).
*/
- {19, "R5_w=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))"},
+ {19, "R5_w=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))"},
+ {23, "R5=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=4,umin_value=14,umax_value=2054,var_off=(0x2; 0xffc)"},
},
},
{
@@ -469,16 +469,16 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
.matches = {
{4, "R5_w=pkt_end(id=0,off=0,imm=0)"},
/* (ptr - ptr) << 2 == unknown, (4n) */
- {6, "R5_w=inv(id=0,smax_value=9223372036854775804,umax_value=18446744073709551612,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffffffffffc))"},
+ {6, "R5_w=inv(id=0,smax_value=9223372036854775804,umax_value=18446744073709551612,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffffffffffc)"},
/* (4n) + 14 == (4n+2). We blow our bounds, because
* the add could overflow.
*/
- {7, "R5_w=inv(id=0,var_off=(0x2; 0xfffffffffffffffc))"},
+ {7, "R5_w=inv(id=0,smin_value=-9223372036854775806,smax_value=9223372036854775806,umin_value=2,umax_value=18446744073709551614,var_off=(0x2; 0xfffffffffffffffc)"},
/* Checked s>=0 */
- {9, "R5=inv(id=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372036854775806,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc))"},
+ {9, "R5=inv(id=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372034707292158,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fffffff7ffffffc)"},
/* packet pointer + nonnegative (4n+2) */
- {11, "R6_w=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372036854775806,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc))"},
- {13, "R4_w=pkt(id=1,off=4,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372036854775806,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc))"},
+ {11, "R6_w=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372034707292158,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fffffff7ffffffc)"},
+ {13, "R4_w=pkt(id=1,off=4,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372034707292158,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fffffff7ffffffc)"},
/* NET_IP_ALIGN + (4n+2) == (4n), alignment is fine.
* We checked the bounds, but it might have been able
* to overflow if the packet pointer started in the
@@ -486,7 +486,7 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
* So we did not get a 'range' on R6, and the access
* attempt will fail.
*/
- {15, "R6_w=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372036854775806,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc))"},
+ {15, "R6_w=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372034707292158,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fffffff7ffffffc)"},
}
},
{
@@ -528,7 +528,7 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
/* New unknown value in R7 is (4n) */
{11, "R7_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"},
/* Subtracting it from R6 blows our unsigned bounds */
- {12, "R6=inv(id=0,smin_value=-1006,smax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0xfffffffffffffffc))"},
+ {12, "R6=inv(id=0,smin_value=-1006,smax_value=1034,umin_value=2,umax_value=18446744073709551614,var_off=(0x2; 0xfffffffffffffffc)"},
/* Checked s>= 0 */
{14, "R6=inv(id=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc))"},
/* At the time the word size load is performed from R5,
@@ -537,7 +537,8 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
* the total offset is 4-byte aligned and meets the
* load's requirements.
*/
- {20, "R5=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=4,umin_value=2,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc))"},
+ {20, "R5=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=4,umin_value=2,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc)"},
+
},
},
{
@@ -579,18 +580,18 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
/* Adding 14 makes R6 be (4n+2) */
{11, "R6_w=inv(id=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=74,var_off=(0x2; 0x7c))"},
/* Subtracting from packet pointer overflows ubounds */
- {13, "R5_w=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=8,umin_value=18446744073709551542,umax_value=18446744073709551602,var_off=(0xffffffffffffff82; 0x7c))"},
+ {13, "R5_w=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=8,umin_value=18446744073709551542,umax_value=18446744073709551602,var_off=(0xffffffffffffff82; 0x7c)"},
/* New unknown value in R7 is (4n), >= 76 */
{15, "R7_w=inv(id=0,umin_value=76,umax_value=1096,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc))"},
/* Adding it to packet pointer gives nice bounds again */
- {16, "R5_w=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=1082,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc))"},
+ {16, "R5_w=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=1082,var_off=(0x2; 0xfffffffc)"},
/* 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.
*/
- {20, "R5=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=4,umin_value=2,umax_value=1082,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc))"},
+ {20, "R5=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=4,umin_value=2,umax_value=1082,var_off=(0x2; 0xfffffffc)"},
},
},
};
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-08-09 18:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-09 18:00 [PATCH 5.4 00/15] 5.4.210-rc1 review Greg Kroah-Hartman
2022-08-09 18:00 ` [PATCH 5.4 01/15] thermal: Fix NULL pointer dereferences in of_thermal_ functions Greg Kroah-Hartman
2022-08-09 18:00 ` [PATCH 5.4 02/15] ACPI: video: Force backlight native for some TongFang devices Greg Kroah-Hartman
2022-08-09 18:00 ` [PATCH 5.4 03/15] ACPI: video: Shortening quirk list by identifying Clevo by board_name only Greg Kroah-Hartman
2022-08-09 18:00 ` [PATCH 5.4 04/15] ACPI: APEI: Better fix to avoid spamming the console with old error logs Greg Kroah-Hartman
2022-08-09 18:00 ` [PATCH 5.4 05/15] bpf: Verifer, adjust_scalar_min_max_vals to always call update_reg_bounds() Greg Kroah-Hartman
2022-08-09 18:00 ` [PATCH 5.4 06/15] selftests/bpf: Extend verifier and bpf_sock tests for dst_port loads Greg Kroah-Hartman
2022-08-09 18:00 ` [PATCH 5.4 07/15] bpf: Test_verifier, #70 error message updates for 32-bit right shift Greg Kroah-Hartman
2022-08-09 18:00 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman [this message]
2022-08-09 18:00 ` [PATCH 5.4 09/15] selftests/bpf: Fix "dubious pointer arithmetic" test Greg Kroah-Hartman
2022-08-09 18:00 ` [PATCH 5.4 10/15] KVM: Dont null dereference ops->destroy Greg Kroah-Hartman
2022-08-09 18:00 ` [PATCH 5.4 11/15] selftests: KVM: Handle compiler optimizations in ucall Greg Kroah-Hartman
2022-08-09 18:00 ` [PATCH 5.4 12/15] media: v4l2-mem2mem: Apply DST_QUEUE_OFF_BASE on MMAP buffers across ioctls Greg Kroah-Hartman
2022-08-09 18:00 ` [PATCH 5.4 13/15] macintosh/adb: fix oob read in do_adb_query() function Greg Kroah-Hartman
2022-08-09 18:00 ` [PATCH 5.4 14/15] x86/speculation: Add RSB VM Exit protections Greg Kroah-Hartman
2022-08-09 18:00 ` [PATCH 5.4 15/15] x86/speculation: Add LFENCE to RSB fill sequence Greg Kroah-Hartman
2022-08-09 18:56 ` [PATCH 5.4 00/15] 5.4.210-rc1 review Florian Fainelli
2022-08-10 9:12 ` Naresh Kamboju
2022-08-10 13:20 ` Sudip Mukherjee (Codethink)
2022-08-10 13:31 ` Guenter Roeck
2022-08-10 14:25 ` Jon Hunter
2022-08-10 14:45 ` Shuah Khan
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=20220809175510.601238672@linuxfoundation.org \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ovidiu.panait@windriver.com \
--cc=sdf@google.com \
--cc=stable@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 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.