* [PATCH 4.19 1/9] bpf: fix test suite to enable all unpriv program types
2021-06-02 3:27 [PATCH 4.19 0/9] bpf: fix verifier selftests on inefficient unaligned access architectures Tiezhu Yang
@ 2021-06-02 3:27 ` Tiezhu Yang
2021-06-02 3:27 ` [PATCH 4.19 2/9] bpf: test make sure to run unpriv test cases in test_verifier Tiezhu Yang
` (9 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Tiezhu Yang @ 2021-06-02 3:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman, Sasha Levin
Cc: stable, bpf, Daniel Borkmann, Alexei Starovoitov
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
commit 36641ad61db5ce9befd5eb0071abb36eaff16cfc upstream
Given BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SKB program types are also valid in an
unprivileged setting, lets not omit these tests and potentially
have issues fall through the cracks. Make this more obvious by
adding a small test_as_unpriv() helper.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 12 ++++++++++--
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
index e1e4b6a..d33d1d7 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@ -4798,6 +4798,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.fixup_cgroup_storage = { 1 },
.result = REJECT,
.errstr = "get_local_storage() doesn't support non-zero flags",
+ .errstr_unpriv = "R2 leaks addr into helper function",
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SKB,
},
{
@@ -12963,6 +12964,13 @@ static void get_unpriv_disabled()
fclose(fd);
}
+static bool test_as_unpriv(struct bpf_test *test)
+{
+ return !test->prog_type ||
+ test->prog_type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER ||
+ test->prog_type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SKB;
+}
+
static int do_test(bool unpriv, unsigned int from, unsigned int to)
{
int i, passes = 0, errors = 0, skips = 0;
@@ -12973,10 +12981,10 @@ static int do_test(bool unpriv, unsigned int from, unsigned int to)
/* Program types that are not supported by non-root we
* skip right away.
*/
- if (!test->prog_type && unpriv_disabled) {
+ if (test_as_unpriv(test) && unpriv_disabled) {
printf("#%d/u %s SKIP\n", i, test->descr);
skips++;
- } else if (!test->prog_type) {
+ } else if (test_as_unpriv(test)) {
if (!unpriv)
set_admin(false);
printf("#%d/u %s ", i, test->descr);
--
2.1.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [PATCH 4.19 2/9] bpf: test make sure to run unpriv test cases in test_verifier
2021-06-02 3:27 [PATCH 4.19 0/9] bpf: fix verifier selftests on inefficient unaligned access architectures Tiezhu Yang
2021-06-02 3:27 ` [PATCH 4.19 1/9] bpf: fix test suite to enable all unpriv program types Tiezhu Yang
@ 2021-06-02 3:27 ` Tiezhu Yang
2021-06-02 3:27 ` [PATCH 4.19 3/9] selftests/bpf: Generalize dummy program types Tiezhu Yang
` (8 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Tiezhu Yang @ 2021-06-02 3:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman, Sasha Levin
Cc: stable, bpf, Daniel Borkmann, Alexei Starovoitov
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
commit 832c6f2c29ec519b766923937f4f93fb1008b47d upstream
Right now unprivileged tests are never executed as a BPF test run,
only loaded. Allow for running them as well so that we can check
the outcome and probe for regressions.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 71 ++++++++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
index d33d1d7..38dd129 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ struct bpf_test {
int fixup_cgroup_storage[MAX_FIXUPS];
const char *errstr;
const char *errstr_unpriv;
- uint32_t retval;
+ uint32_t retval, retval_unpriv;
enum {
UNDEF,
ACCEPT,
@@ -2986,6 +2986,8 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.fixup_prog1 = { 2 },
.result = ACCEPT,
.retval = 42,
+ /* Verifier rewrite for unpriv skips tail call here. */
+ .retval_unpriv = 2,
},
{
"stack pointer arithmetic",
@@ -12811,6 +12813,33 @@ static void do_test_fixup(struct bpf_test *test, struct bpf_insn *prog,
}
}
+static int set_admin(bool admin)
+{
+ cap_t caps;
+ const cap_value_t cap_val = CAP_SYS_ADMIN;
+ int ret = -1;
+
+ caps = cap_get_proc();
+ if (!caps) {
+ perror("cap_get_proc");
+ return -1;
+ }
+ if (cap_set_flag(caps, CAP_EFFECTIVE, 1, &cap_val,
+ admin ? CAP_SET : CAP_CLEAR)) {
+ perror("cap_set_flag");
+ goto out;
+ }
+ if (cap_set_proc(caps)) {
+ perror("cap_set_proc");
+ goto out;
+ }
+ ret = 0;
+out:
+ if (cap_free(caps))
+ perror("cap_free");
+ return ret;
+}
+
static void do_test_single(struct bpf_test *test, bool unpriv,
int *passes, int *errors)
{
@@ -12819,6 +12848,7 @@ static void do_test_single(struct bpf_test *test, bool unpriv,
struct bpf_insn *prog = test->insns;
int map_fds[MAX_NR_MAPS];
const char *expected_err;
+ uint32_t expected_val;
uint32_t retval;
int i, err;
@@ -12836,6 +12866,8 @@ static void do_test_single(struct bpf_test *test, bool unpriv,
test->result_unpriv : test->result;
expected_err = unpriv && test->errstr_unpriv ?
test->errstr_unpriv : test->errstr;
+ expected_val = unpriv && test->retval_unpriv ?
+ test->retval_unpriv : test->retval;
reject_from_alignment = fd_prog < 0 &&
(test->flags & F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS) &&
@@ -12869,16 +12901,20 @@ static void do_test_single(struct bpf_test *test, bool unpriv,
__u8 tmp[TEST_DATA_LEN << 2];
__u32 size_tmp = sizeof(tmp);
+ if (unpriv)
+ set_admin(true);
err = bpf_prog_test_run(fd_prog, 1, test->data,
sizeof(test->data), tmp, &size_tmp,
&retval, NULL);
+ if (unpriv)
+ set_admin(false);
if (err && errno != 524/*ENOTSUPP*/ && errno != EPERM) {
printf("Unexpected bpf_prog_test_run error\n");
goto fail_log;
}
- if (!err && retval != test->retval &&
- test->retval != POINTER_VALUE) {
- printf("FAIL retval %d != %d\n", retval, test->retval);
+ if (!err && retval != expected_val &&
+ expected_val != POINTER_VALUE) {
+ printf("FAIL retval %d != %d\n", retval, expected_val);
goto fail_log;
}
}
@@ -12921,33 +12957,6 @@ static bool is_admin(void)
return (sysadmin == CAP_SET);
}
-static int set_admin(bool admin)
-{
- cap_t caps;
- const cap_value_t cap_val = CAP_SYS_ADMIN;
- int ret = -1;
-
- caps = cap_get_proc();
- if (!caps) {
- perror("cap_get_proc");
- return -1;
- }
- if (cap_set_flag(caps, CAP_EFFECTIVE, 1, &cap_val,
- admin ? CAP_SET : CAP_CLEAR)) {
- perror("cap_set_flag");
- goto out;
- }
- if (cap_set_proc(caps)) {
- perror("cap_set_proc");
- goto out;
- }
- ret = 0;
-out:
- if (cap_free(caps))
- perror("cap_free");
- return ret;
-}
-
static void get_unpriv_disabled()
{
char buf[2];
--
2.1.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [PATCH 4.19 3/9] selftests/bpf: Generalize dummy program types
2021-06-02 3:27 [PATCH 4.19 0/9] bpf: fix verifier selftests on inefficient unaligned access architectures Tiezhu Yang
2021-06-02 3:27 ` [PATCH 4.19 1/9] bpf: fix test suite to enable all unpriv program types Tiezhu Yang
2021-06-02 3:27 ` [PATCH 4.19 2/9] bpf: test make sure to run unpriv test cases in test_verifier Tiezhu Yang
@ 2021-06-02 3:27 ` Tiezhu Yang
2021-06-02 3:27 ` [PATCH 4.19 4/9] bpf: Add BPF_F_ANY_ALIGNMENT Tiezhu Yang
` (7 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Tiezhu Yang @ 2021-06-02 3:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman, Sasha Levin
Cc: stable, bpf, Joe Stringer, Daniel Borkmann
From: Joe Stringer <joe@wand.net.nz>
commit 0c586079f852187d19fea60c9a4981ad29e22ba8 upstream
Don't hardcode the dummy program types to SOCKET_FILTER type, as this
prevents testing bpf_tail_call in conjunction with other program types.
Instead, use the program type specified in the test case.
Signed-off-by: Joe Stringer <joe@wand.net.nz>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
index 38dd129..809d8e9 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@ -12631,18 +12631,18 @@ static int create_map(uint32_t type, uint32_t size_key,
return fd;
}
-static int create_prog_dummy1(void)
+static int create_prog_dummy1(enum bpf_map_type prog_type)
{
struct bpf_insn prog[] = {
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 42),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
};
- return bpf_load_program(BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER, prog,
+ return bpf_load_program(prog_type, prog,
ARRAY_SIZE(prog), "GPL", 0, NULL, 0);
}
-static int create_prog_dummy2(int mfd, int idx)
+static int create_prog_dummy2(enum bpf_map_type prog_type, int mfd, int idx)
{
struct bpf_insn prog[] = {
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_3, idx),
@@ -12653,11 +12653,12 @@ static int create_prog_dummy2(int mfd, int idx)
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
};
- return bpf_load_program(BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER, prog,
+ return bpf_load_program(prog_type, prog,
ARRAY_SIZE(prog), "GPL", 0, NULL, 0);
}
-static int create_prog_array(uint32_t max_elem, int p1key)
+static int create_prog_array(enum bpf_map_type prog_type, uint32_t max_elem,
+ int p1key)
{
int p2key = 1;
int mfd, p1fd, p2fd;
@@ -12669,8 +12670,8 @@ static int create_prog_array(uint32_t max_elem, int p1key)
return -1;
}
- p1fd = create_prog_dummy1();
- p2fd = create_prog_dummy2(mfd, p2key);
+ p1fd = create_prog_dummy1(prog_type);
+ p2fd = create_prog_dummy2(prog_type, mfd, p2key);
if (p1fd < 0 || p2fd < 0)
goto out;
if (bpf_map_update_elem(mfd, &p1key, &p1fd, BPF_ANY) < 0)
@@ -12725,8 +12726,8 @@ static int create_cgroup_storage(void)
static char bpf_vlog[UINT_MAX >> 8];
-static void do_test_fixup(struct bpf_test *test, struct bpf_insn *prog,
- int *map_fds)
+static void do_test_fixup(struct bpf_test *test, enum bpf_map_type prog_type,
+ struct bpf_insn *prog, int *map_fds)
{
int *fixup_map1 = test->fixup_map1;
int *fixup_map2 = test->fixup_map2;
@@ -12781,7 +12782,7 @@ static void do_test_fixup(struct bpf_test *test, struct bpf_insn *prog,
}
if (*fixup_prog1) {
- map_fds[4] = create_prog_array(4, 0);
+ map_fds[4] = create_prog_array(prog_type, 4, 0);
do {
prog[*fixup_prog1].imm = map_fds[4];
fixup_prog1++;
@@ -12789,7 +12790,7 @@ static void do_test_fixup(struct bpf_test *test, struct bpf_insn *prog,
}
if (*fixup_prog2) {
- map_fds[5] = create_prog_array(8, 7);
+ map_fds[5] = create_prog_array(prog_type, 8, 7);
do {
prog[*fixup_prog2].imm = map_fds[5];
fixup_prog2++;
@@ -12855,11 +12856,13 @@ static void do_test_single(struct bpf_test *test, bool unpriv,
for (i = 0; i < MAX_NR_MAPS; i++)
map_fds[i] = -1;
- do_test_fixup(test, prog, map_fds);
+ if (!prog_type)
+ prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER;
+ do_test_fixup(test, prog_type, prog, map_fds);
prog_len = probe_filter_length(prog);
- fd_prog = bpf_verify_program(prog_type ? : BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER,
- prog, prog_len, test->flags & F_LOAD_WITH_STRICT_ALIGNMENT,
+ fd_prog = bpf_verify_program(prog_type, prog, prog_len,
+ test->flags & F_LOAD_WITH_STRICT_ALIGNMENT,
"GPL", 0, bpf_vlog, sizeof(bpf_vlog), 1);
expected_ret = unpriv && test->result_unpriv != UNDEF ?
--
2.1.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [PATCH 4.19 4/9] bpf: Add BPF_F_ANY_ALIGNMENT.
2021-06-02 3:27 [PATCH 4.19 0/9] bpf: fix verifier selftests on inefficient unaligned access architectures Tiezhu Yang
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2021-06-02 3:27 ` [PATCH 4.19 3/9] selftests/bpf: Generalize dummy program types Tiezhu Yang
@ 2021-06-02 3:27 ` Tiezhu Yang
2021-06-02 3:27 ` [PATCH 4.19 5/9] bpf: Adjust F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS handling in test_verifier.c Tiezhu Yang
` (6 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Tiezhu Yang @ 2021-06-02 3:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman, Sasha Levin
Cc: stable, bpf, David S. Miller, Alexei Starovoitov
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
commit e9ee9efc0d176512cdce9d27ff8549d7ffa2bfcd upstream
Often we want to write tests cases that check things like bad context
offset accesses. And one way to do this is to use an odd offset on,
for example, a 32-bit load.
This unfortunately triggers the alignment checks first on platforms
that do not set CONFIG_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS. So the test
case see the alignment failure rather than what it was testing for.
It is often not completely possible to respect the original intention
of the test, or even test the same exact thing, while solving the
alignment issue.
Another option could have been to check the alignment after the
context and other validations are performed by the verifier, but
that is a non-trivial change to the verifier.
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>
---
include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 14 ++++++++++++++
kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 7 ++++++-
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 3 +++
tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 14 ++++++++++++++
tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c | 8 ++++----
tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h | 2 +-
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c | 4 ++--
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 3 ++-
8 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
index 71ca8c4d..8481fc7 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
@@ -228,6 +228,20 @@ enum bpf_attach_type {
*/
#define BPF_F_STRICT_ALIGNMENT (1U << 0)
+/* If BPF_F_ANY_ALIGNMENT is used in BPF_PROF_LOAD command, the
+ * verifier will allow any alignment whatsoever. On platforms
+ * with strict alignment requirements for loads ands stores (such
+ * as sparc and mips) the verifier validates that all loads and
+ * stores provably follow this requirement. This flag turns that
+ * checking and enforcement off.
+ *
+ * It is mostly used for testing when we want to validate the
+ * context and memory access aspects of the verifier, but because
+ * of an unaligned access the alignment check would trigger before
+ * the one we are interested in.
+ */
+#define BPF_F_ANY_ALIGNMENT (1U << 1)
+
/* when bpf_ldimm64->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_MAP_FD, bpf_ldimm64->imm == fd */
#define BPF_PSEUDO_MAP_FD 1
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
index 21a366a..353a8d6 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
@@ -1367,9 +1367,14 @@ static int bpf_prog_load(union bpf_attr *attr)
if (CHECK_ATTR(BPF_PROG_LOAD))
return -EINVAL;
- if (attr->prog_flags & ~BPF_F_STRICT_ALIGNMENT)
+ if (attr->prog_flags & ~(BPF_F_STRICT_ALIGNMENT | BPF_F_ANY_ALIGNMENT))
return -EINVAL;
+ if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS) &&
+ (attr->prog_flags & BPF_F_ANY_ALIGNMENT) &&
+ !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
+ return -EPERM;
+
/* copy eBPF program license from user space */
if (strncpy_from_user(license, u64_to_user_ptr(attr->license),
sizeof(license) - 1) < 0)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 1f4c88c..4ce032c 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -6440,6 +6440,9 @@ int bpf_check(struct bpf_prog **prog, union bpf_attr *attr)
if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS))
env->strict_alignment = true;
+ if (attr->prog_flags & BPF_F_ANY_ALIGNMENT)
+ env->strict_alignment = false;
+
ret = replace_map_fd_with_map_ptr(env);
if (ret < 0)
goto skip_full_check;
diff --git a/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
index 1394497..9e060c6 100644
--- a/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
+++ b/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
@@ -226,6 +226,20 @@ enum bpf_attach_type {
*/
#define BPF_F_STRICT_ALIGNMENT (1U << 0)
+/* If BPF_F_ANY_ALIGNMENT is used in BPF_PROF_LOAD command, the
+ * verifier will allow any alignment whatsoever. On platforms
+ * with strict alignment requirements for loads ands stores (such
+ * as sparc and mips) the verifier validates that all loads and
+ * stores provably follow this requirement. This flag turns that
+ * checking and enforcement off.
+ *
+ * It is mostly used for testing when we want to validate the
+ * context and memory access aspects of the verifier, but because
+ * of an unaligned access the alignment check would trigger before
+ * the one we are interested in.
+ */
+#define BPF_F_ANY_ALIGNMENT (1U << 1)
+
/* when bpf_ldimm64->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_MAP_FD, bpf_ldimm64->imm == fd */
#define BPF_PSEUDO_MAP_FD 1
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
index 482025b..f28ae6a 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
@@ -261,9 +261,9 @@ int bpf_load_program(enum bpf_prog_type type, const struct bpf_insn *insns,
}
int bpf_verify_program(enum bpf_prog_type type, const struct bpf_insn *insns,
- size_t insns_cnt, int strict_alignment,
- const char *license, __u32 kern_version,
- char *log_buf, size_t log_buf_sz, int log_level)
+ size_t insns_cnt, __u32 prog_flags, const char *license,
+ __u32 kern_version, char *log_buf, size_t log_buf_sz,
+ int log_level)
{
union bpf_attr attr;
@@ -277,7 +277,7 @@ int bpf_verify_program(enum bpf_prog_type type, const struct bpf_insn *insns,
attr.log_level = log_level;
log_buf[0] = 0;
attr.kern_version = kern_version;
- attr.prog_flags = strict_alignment ? BPF_F_STRICT_ALIGNMENT : 0;
+ attr.prog_flags = prog_flags;
return sys_bpf_prog_load(&attr, sizeof(attr));
}
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h
index c3145ab..7f2e947 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h
@@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ int bpf_load_program(enum bpf_prog_type type, const struct bpf_insn *insns,
__u32 kern_version, char *log_buf,
size_t log_buf_sz);
int bpf_verify_program(enum bpf_prog_type type, const struct bpf_insn *insns,
- size_t insns_cnt, int strict_alignment,
+ size_t insns_cnt, __u32 prog_flags,
const char *license, __u32 kern_version,
char *log_buf, size_t log_buf_sz, int log_level);
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c
index 5f377ec..3c789d0 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c
@@ -620,8 +620,8 @@ static int do_test_single(struct bpf_align_test *test)
prog_len = probe_filter_length(prog);
fd_prog = bpf_verify_program(prog_type ? : BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER,
- prog, prog_len, 1, "GPL", 0,
- bpf_vlog, sizeof(bpf_vlog), 2);
+ prog, prog_len, BPF_F_STRICT_ALIGNMENT,
+ "GPL", 0, bpf_vlog, sizeof(bpf_vlog), 2);
if (fd_prog < 0 && test->result != REJECT) {
printf("Failed to load program.\n");
printf("%s", bpf_vlog);
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
index 809d8e9..919f97a 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@ -12862,7 +12862,8 @@ static void do_test_single(struct bpf_test *test, bool unpriv,
prog_len = probe_filter_length(prog);
fd_prog = bpf_verify_program(prog_type, prog, prog_len,
- test->flags & F_LOAD_WITH_STRICT_ALIGNMENT,
+ test->flags & F_LOAD_WITH_STRICT_ALIGNMENT ?
+ BPF_F_STRICT_ALIGNMENT : 0,
"GPL", 0, bpf_vlog, sizeof(bpf_vlog), 1);
expected_ret = unpriv && test->result_unpriv != UNDEF ?
--
2.1.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [PATCH 4.19 5/9] bpf: Adjust F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS handling in test_verifier.c
2021-06-02 3:27 [PATCH 4.19 0/9] bpf: fix verifier selftests on inefficient unaligned access architectures Tiezhu Yang
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2021-06-02 3:27 ` [PATCH 4.19 4/9] bpf: Add BPF_F_ANY_ALIGNMENT Tiezhu Yang
@ 2021-06-02 3:27 ` Tiezhu Yang
2021-06-02 3:27 ` [PATCH 4.19 6/9] bpf: Make more use of 'any' alignment " Tiezhu Yang
` (5 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Tiezhu Yang @ 2021-06-02 3:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman, Sasha Levin
Cc: stable, bpf, David S. Miller, Alexei Starovoitov
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
commit c7665702d3208b77b8e00f0699b6b88241b04360 upstream
Make it set the flag argument to bpf_verify_program() which will relax
the alignment restrictions.
Now all such test cases will go properly through the verifier even on
inefficient unaligned access architectures.
On inefficient unaligned access architectures do not try to run such
programs, instead mark the test case as passing but annotate the
result similarly to how it is done now in the presence of this flag.
So, we get complete full coverage for all REJECT test cases, and at
least verifier level coverage for ACCEPT test cases.
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
index 919f97a..686f5d1 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@ -12844,13 +12844,14 @@ static int set_admin(bool admin)
static void do_test_single(struct bpf_test *test, bool unpriv,
int *passes, int *errors)
{
- int fd_prog, expected_ret, reject_from_alignment;
+ int fd_prog, expected_ret, alignment_prevented_execution;
int prog_len, prog_type = test->prog_type;
struct bpf_insn *prog = test->insns;
int map_fds[MAX_NR_MAPS];
const char *expected_err;
uint32_t expected_val;
uint32_t retval;
+ __u32 pflags;
int i, err;
for (i = 0; i < MAX_NR_MAPS; i++)
@@ -12861,9 +12862,12 @@ static void do_test_single(struct bpf_test *test, bool unpriv,
do_test_fixup(test, prog_type, prog, map_fds);
prog_len = probe_filter_length(prog);
- fd_prog = bpf_verify_program(prog_type, prog, prog_len,
- test->flags & F_LOAD_WITH_STRICT_ALIGNMENT ?
- BPF_F_STRICT_ALIGNMENT : 0,
+ pflags = 0;
+ if (test->flags & F_LOAD_WITH_STRICT_ALIGNMENT)
+ pflags |= BPF_F_STRICT_ALIGNMENT;
+ if (test->flags & F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS)
+ pflags |= BPF_F_ANY_ALIGNMENT;
+ fd_prog = bpf_verify_program(prog_type, prog, prog_len, pflags,
"GPL", 0, bpf_vlog, sizeof(bpf_vlog), 1);
expected_ret = unpriv && test->result_unpriv != UNDEF ?
@@ -12873,28 +12877,27 @@ static void do_test_single(struct bpf_test *test, bool unpriv,
expected_val = unpriv && test->retval_unpriv ?
test->retval_unpriv : test->retval;
- reject_from_alignment = fd_prog < 0 &&
- (test->flags & F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS) &&
- strstr(bpf_vlog, "misaligned");
-#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
- if (reject_from_alignment) {
- printf("FAIL\nFailed due to alignment despite having efficient unaligned access: '%s'!\n",
- strerror(errno));
- goto fail_log;
- }
-#endif
+ alignment_prevented_execution = 0;
+
if (expected_ret == ACCEPT) {
- if (fd_prog < 0 && !reject_from_alignment) {
+ if (fd_prog < 0) {
printf("FAIL\nFailed to load prog '%s'!\n",
strerror(errno));
goto fail_log;
}
+#ifndef CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
+ if (fd_prog >= 0 &&
+ (test->flags & F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS)) {
+ alignment_prevented_execution = 1;
+ goto test_ok;
+ }
+#endif
} else {
if (fd_prog >= 0) {
printf("FAIL\nUnexpected success to load!\n");
goto fail_log;
}
- if (!strstr(bpf_vlog, expected_err) && !reject_from_alignment) {
+ if (!strstr(bpf_vlog, expected_err)) {
printf("FAIL\nUnexpected error message!\n\tEXP: %s\n\tRES: %s\n",
expected_err, bpf_vlog);
goto fail_log;
@@ -12922,9 +12925,12 @@ static void do_test_single(struct bpf_test *test, bool unpriv,
goto fail_log;
}
}
+#ifndef CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
+test_ok:
+#endif
(*passes)++;
- printf("OK%s\n", reject_from_alignment ?
- " (NOTE: reject due to unknown alignment)" : "");
+ printf("OK%s\n", alignment_prevented_execution ?
+ " (NOTE: not executed due to unknown alignment)" : "");
close_fds:
close(fd_prog);
for (i = 0; i < MAX_NR_MAPS; i++)
--
2.1.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [PATCH 4.19 6/9] bpf: Make more use of 'any' alignment in test_verifier.c
2021-06-02 3:27 [PATCH 4.19 0/9] bpf: fix verifier selftests on inefficient unaligned access architectures Tiezhu Yang
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2021-06-02 3:27 ` [PATCH 4.19 5/9] bpf: Adjust F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS handling in test_verifier.c Tiezhu Yang
@ 2021-06-02 3:27 ` Tiezhu Yang
2021-06-02 3:27 ` [PATCH 4.19 7/9] bpf: Apply F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS to more ACCEPT test cases Tiezhu Yang
` (4 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Tiezhu Yang @ 2021-06-02 3:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman, Sasha Levin
Cc: stable, bpf, David S. Miller, Alexei Starovoitov
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
commit 2acc5fd5b8c25df0de7f3c8b8e385f5c6f8202ec upstream
Use F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS in more tests where the
expected result is REJECT.
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 41 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
index 686f5d1..a402121 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@ -1799,6 +1799,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.errstr = "invalid bpf_context access",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SK_MSG,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"direct packet read for SK_MSG",
@@ -2191,6 +2192,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
},
.errstr = "invalid bpf_context access",
.result = REJECT,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"check cb access: half, wrong type",
@@ -3151,6 +3153,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.result = REJECT,
.errstr = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'",
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"raw_stack: skb_load_bytes, spilled regs corruption 2",
@@ -3181,6 +3184,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.result = REJECT,
.errstr = "R3 invalid mem access 'inv'",
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"raw_stack: skb_load_bytes, spilled regs + data",
@@ -3680,6 +3684,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.errstr = "R2 invalid mem access 'inv'",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"direct packet access: test16 (arith on data_end)",
@@ -3863,6 +3868,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
.result = REJECT,
.errstr = "invalid access to packet, off=0 size=8, R5(id=1,off=0,r=0)",
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"direct packet access: test24 (x += pkt_ptr, 5)",
@@ -4767,6 +4773,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.result = REJECT,
.errstr = "invalid access to map value, value_size=64 off=-2 size=4",
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SKB,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"invalid cgroup storage access 5",
@@ -6433,6 +6440,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.errstr = "invalid mem access 'inv'",
.result = REJECT,
.result_unpriv = REJECT,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"map element value illegal alu op, 5",
@@ -6455,6 +6463,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.fixup_map2 = { 3 },
.errstr = "R0 invalid mem access 'inv'",
.result = REJECT,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"map element value is preserved across register spilling",
@@ -8951,6 +8960,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"XDP pkt read, pkt_end > pkt_data', good access",
@@ -8989,6 +8999,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"XDP pkt read, pkt_end > pkt_data', bad access 2",
@@ -9007,6 +9018,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"XDP pkt read, pkt_data' < pkt_end, good access",
@@ -9045,6 +9057,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"XDP pkt read, pkt_data' < pkt_end, bad access 2",
@@ -9063,6 +9076,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"XDP pkt read, pkt_end < pkt_data', good access",
@@ -9117,6 +9131,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"XDP pkt read, pkt_data' >= pkt_end, good access",
@@ -9153,6 +9168,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"XDP pkt read, pkt_data' >= pkt_end, bad access 2",
@@ -9228,6 +9244,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"XDP pkt read, pkt_data' <= pkt_end, good access",
@@ -9284,6 +9301,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"XDP pkt read, pkt_end <= pkt_data', good access",
@@ -9320,6 +9338,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"XDP pkt read, pkt_end <= pkt_data', bad access 2",
@@ -9393,6 +9412,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"XDP pkt read, pkt_data > pkt_meta', good access",
@@ -9431,6 +9451,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"XDP pkt read, pkt_data > pkt_meta', bad access 2",
@@ -9449,6 +9470,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"XDP pkt read, pkt_meta' < pkt_data, good access",
@@ -9487,6 +9509,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"XDP pkt read, pkt_meta' < pkt_data, bad access 2",
@@ -9505,6 +9528,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"XDP pkt read, pkt_data < pkt_meta', good access",
@@ -9559,6 +9583,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"XDP pkt read, pkt_meta' >= pkt_data, good access",
@@ -9595,6 +9620,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"XDP pkt read, pkt_meta' >= pkt_data, bad access 2",
@@ -9670,6 +9696,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"XDP pkt read, pkt_meta' <= pkt_data, good access",
@@ -9726,6 +9753,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"XDP pkt read, pkt_data <= pkt_meta', good access",
@@ -9762,6 +9790,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.errstr = "R1 offset is outside of the packet",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"XDP pkt read, pkt_data <= pkt_meta', bad access 2",
@@ -9876,6 +9905,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.errstr_unpriv = "R1 has pointer with unsupported alu operation",
.errstr = "dereference of modified ctx ptr",
.result = REJECT,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"check deducing bounds from const, 8",
@@ -9890,6 +9920,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.errstr_unpriv = "R1 has pointer with unsupported alu operation",
.errstr = "dereference of modified ctx ptr",
.result = REJECT,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"check deducing bounds from const, 9",
@@ -10365,6 +10396,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.result = REJECT,
.errstr = "R6 invalid mem access 'inv'",
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"calls: two calls with args",
@@ -11230,6 +11262,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.fixup_map1 = { 12, 22 },
.result = REJECT,
.errstr = "invalid access to map value, value_size=8 off=2 size=8",
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"calls: two calls that receive map_value via arg=ptr_stack_of_caller. test2",
@@ -11373,6 +11406,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.fixup_map1 = { 12, 22 },
.result = REJECT,
.errstr = "invalid access to map value, value_size=8 off=2 size=8",
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"calls: two calls that receive map_value_ptr_or_null via arg. test1",
@@ -11544,6 +11578,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.result = ACCEPT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
.retval = POINTER_VALUE,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"calls: pkt_ptr spill into caller stack 2",
@@ -11575,6 +11610,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
.errstr = "invalid access to packet",
.result = REJECT,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"calls: pkt_ptr spill into caller stack 3",
@@ -11677,6 +11713,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
.errstr = "same insn cannot be used with different",
.result = REJECT,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"calls: pkt_ptr spill into caller stack 6",
@@ -11712,6 +11749,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
.errstr = "R4 invalid mem access",
.result = REJECT,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"calls: pkt_ptr spill into caller stack 7",
@@ -11746,6 +11784,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
.errstr = "R4 invalid mem access",
.result = REJECT,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"calls: pkt_ptr spill into caller stack 8",
@@ -11827,6 +11866,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
.errstr = "invalid access to packet",
.result = REJECT,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"calls: caller stack init to zero or map_value_or_null",
@@ -12192,6 +12232,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.result = REJECT,
.errstr = "BPF_XADD stores into R2 packet",
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"xadd/w check whether src/dst got mangled, 1",
--
2.1.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [PATCH 4.19 7/9] bpf: Apply F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS to more ACCEPT test cases.
2021-06-02 3:27 [PATCH 4.19 0/9] bpf: fix verifier selftests on inefficient unaligned access architectures Tiezhu Yang
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2021-06-02 3:27 ` [PATCH 4.19 6/9] bpf: Make more use of 'any' alignment " Tiezhu Yang
@ 2021-06-02 3:27 ` Tiezhu Yang
2021-06-02 3:27 ` [PATCH 4.19 8/9] selftests/bpf: add "any alignment" annotation for some tests Tiezhu Yang
` (3 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Tiezhu Yang @ 2021-06-02 3:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman, Sasha Levin
Cc: stable, bpf, David S. Miller, Alexei Starovoitov
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
commit 0a68632488aa0129ed530af9ae9e8573f5650812 upstream
If a testcase has alignment problems but is expected to be ACCEPT,
verify it using F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS too.
Maybe in the future if we add some architecture specific code to elide
the unaligned memory access warnings during the test, we can execute
these as well.
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
index a402121..2241e4ee 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@ -3787,6 +3787,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
},
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
.result = ACCEPT,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"direct packet access: test21 (x += pkt_ptr, 2)",
@@ -3812,6 +3813,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
},
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
.result = ACCEPT,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"direct packet access: test22 (x += pkt_ptr, 3)",
@@ -3842,6 +3844,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
},
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
.result = ACCEPT,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"direct packet access: test23 (x += pkt_ptr, 4)",
@@ -3894,6 +3897,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
},
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
.result = ACCEPT,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"direct packet access: test25 (marking on <, good access)",
@@ -6957,6 +6961,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.result = ACCEPT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
.retval = 0 /* csum_diff of 64-byte packet */,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"helper access to variable memory: size = 0 not allowed on NULL (!ARG_PTR_TO_MEM_OR_NULL)",
@@ -8923,6 +8928,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
},
.result = ACCEPT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"XDP pkt read, pkt_data' > pkt_end, bad access 1",
@@ -9094,6 +9100,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
},
.result = ACCEPT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"XDP pkt read, pkt_end < pkt_data', bad access 1",
@@ -9206,6 +9213,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
},
.result = ACCEPT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"XDP pkt read, pkt_end >= pkt_data', bad access 1",
@@ -9263,6 +9271,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
},
.result = ACCEPT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"XDP pkt read, pkt_data' <= pkt_end, bad access 1",
@@ -9375,6 +9384,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
},
.result = ACCEPT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"XDP pkt read, pkt_meta' > pkt_data, bad access 1",
@@ -9546,6 +9556,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
},
.result = ACCEPT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"XDP pkt read, pkt_data < pkt_meta', bad access 1",
@@ -9658,6 +9669,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
},
.result = ACCEPT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"XDP pkt read, pkt_data >= pkt_meta', bad access 1",
@@ -9715,6 +9727,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
},
.result = ACCEPT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"XDP pkt read, pkt_meta' <= pkt_data, bad access 1",
@@ -11646,6 +11659,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
.result = ACCEPT,
.retval = 1,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"calls: pkt_ptr spill into caller stack 4",
@@ -11680,6 +11694,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
.result = ACCEPT,
.retval = 1,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"calls: pkt_ptr spill into caller stack 5",
@@ -11825,6 +11840,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
},
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
.result = ACCEPT,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"calls: pkt_ptr spill into caller stack 9",
--
2.1.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [PATCH 4.19 8/9] selftests/bpf: add "any alignment" annotation for some tests
2021-06-02 3:27 [PATCH 4.19 0/9] bpf: fix verifier selftests on inefficient unaligned access architectures Tiezhu Yang
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2021-06-02 3:27 ` [PATCH 4.19 7/9] bpf: Apply F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS to more ACCEPT test cases Tiezhu Yang
@ 2021-06-02 3:27 ` Tiezhu Yang
2021-06-02 3:27 ` [PATCH 4.19 9/9] selftests/bpf: Avoid running unprivileged tests with alignment requirements Tiezhu Yang
` (2 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Tiezhu Yang @ 2021-06-02 3:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman, Sasha Levin
Cc: stable, bpf, Björn Töpel, Daniel Borkmann
From: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@gmail.com>
commit e2c6f50e48849298bed694de03cceb537d95cdc4 upstream
RISC-V does, in-general, not have "efficient unaligned access". When
testing the RISC-V BPF JIT, some selftests failed in the verification
due to misaligned access. Annotate these tests with the
F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS flag.
Signed-off-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
index 2241e4ee..b0fd67c 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@ -963,6 +963,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.errstr_unpriv = "attempt to corrupt spilled",
.errstr = "corrupted spill",
.result = REJECT,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"invalid src register in STX",
@@ -1777,6 +1778,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.errstr = "invalid bpf_context access",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SK_MSG,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"invalid read past end of SK_MSG",
@@ -2176,6 +2178,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
},
.errstr = "invalid bpf_context access",
.result = REJECT,
+ .flags = F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
},
{
"check skb->hash half load not permitted, unaligned 3",
--
2.1.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [PATCH 4.19 9/9] selftests/bpf: Avoid running unprivileged tests with alignment requirements
2021-06-02 3:27 [PATCH 4.19 0/9] bpf: fix verifier selftests on inefficient unaligned access architectures Tiezhu Yang
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2021-06-02 3:27 ` [PATCH 4.19 8/9] selftests/bpf: add "any alignment" annotation for some tests Tiezhu Yang
@ 2021-06-02 3:27 ` Tiezhu Yang
2021-06-05 7:16 ` [PATCH 4.19 0/9] bpf: fix verifier selftests on inefficient unaligned access architectures Tiezhu Yang
2021-06-08 14:45 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
10 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Tiezhu Yang @ 2021-06-02 3:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman, Sasha Levin
Cc: stable, bpf, Björn Töpel, Andrii Nakryiko
From: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@gmail.com>
commit c77b0589ca29ad1859fe7d7c1ecd63c0632379fa upstream
Some architectures have strict alignment requirements. In that case,
the BPF verifier detects if a program has unaligned accesses and
rejects them. A user can pass BPF_F_ANY_ALIGNMENT to a program to
override this check. That, however, will only work when a privileged
user loads a program. An unprivileged user loading a program with this
flag will be rejected prior entering the verifier.
Hence, it does not make sense to load unprivileged programs without
strict alignment when testing the verifier. This patch avoids exactly
that.
Signed-off-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Luke Nelson <luke.r.nels@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201118071640.83773-3-bjorn.topel@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 13 +++++++++++++
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
index b0fd67c..b443245 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@ -13045,6 +13045,19 @@ static void get_unpriv_disabled()
static bool test_as_unpriv(struct bpf_test *test)
{
+#ifndef CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
+ /* Some architectures have strict alignment requirements. In
+ * that case, the BPF verifier detects if a program has
+ * unaligned accesses and rejects them. A user can pass
+ * BPF_F_ANY_ALIGNMENT to a program to override this
+ * check. That, however, will only work when a privileged user
+ * loads a program. An unprivileged user loading a program
+ * with this flag will be rejected prior entering the
+ * verifier.
+ */
+ if (test->flags & F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS)
+ return false;
+#endif
return !test->prog_type ||
test->prog_type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER ||
test->prog_type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SKB;
--
2.1.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 4.19 0/9] bpf: fix verifier selftests on inefficient unaligned access architectures
2021-06-02 3:27 [PATCH 4.19 0/9] bpf: fix verifier selftests on inefficient unaligned access architectures Tiezhu Yang
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2021-06-02 3:27 ` [PATCH 4.19 9/9] selftests/bpf: Avoid running unprivileged tests with alignment requirements Tiezhu Yang
@ 2021-06-05 7:16 ` Tiezhu Yang
2021-06-08 14:40 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-06-08 14:45 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
10 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Tiezhu Yang @ 2021-06-05 7:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman, Sasha Levin; +Cc: stable, bpf
On 06/02/2021 11:27 AM, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
> With the following patch series, all verifier selftests pass on the archs which
> select HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS.
>
> [v2,4.19,00/19] bpf: fix verifier selftests, add CVE-2021-29155, CVE-2021-33200 fixes
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/cover/20210528103810.22025-1-ovidiu.panait@windriver.com/
>
> But on inefficient unaligned access architectures, there still exist many failures,
> so some patches about F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS are also needed, backport
> to 4.19 with a minor context difference.
>
> This patch series is based on the series (all now queued up by greg k-h):
> "bpf: fix verifier selftests, add CVE-2021-29155, CVE-2021-33200 fixes".
>
> Björn Töpel (2):
> selftests/bpf: add "any alignment" annotation for some tests
> selftests/bpf: Avoid running unprivileged tests with alignment
> requirements
>
> Daniel Borkmann (2):
> bpf: fix test suite to enable all unpriv program types
> bpf: test make sure to run unpriv test cases in test_verifier
>
> David S. Miller (4):
> bpf: Add BPF_F_ANY_ALIGNMENT.
> bpf: Adjust F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS handling in
> test_verifier.c
> bpf: Make more use of 'any' alignment in test_verifier.c
> bpf: Apply F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS to more ACCEPT test
> cases.
>
> Joe Stringer (1):
> selftests/bpf: Generalize dummy program types
>
> include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 14 ++
> kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 7 +-
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 3 +
> tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 14 ++
> tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c | 8 +-
> tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h | 2 +-
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c | 4 +-
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 224 ++++++++++++++++++++--------
> 8 files changed, 206 insertions(+), 70 deletions(-)
>
Hi Greg and Sasha,
Could you please apply this series to 4.19?
Any comments will be much appreciated.
Thanks,
Tiezhu
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 4.19 0/9] bpf: fix verifier selftests on inefficient unaligned access architectures
2021-06-05 7:16 ` [PATCH 4.19 0/9] bpf: fix verifier selftests on inefficient unaligned access architectures Tiezhu Yang
@ 2021-06-08 14:40 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman @ 2021-06-08 14:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tiezhu Yang; +Cc: Sasha Levin, stable, bpf
On Sat, Jun 05, 2021 at 03:16:44PM +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
> On 06/02/2021 11:27 AM, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
> > With the following patch series, all verifier selftests pass on the archs which
> > select HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS.
> >
> > [v2,4.19,00/19] bpf: fix verifier selftests, add CVE-2021-29155, CVE-2021-33200 fixes
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/cover/20210528103810.22025-1-ovidiu.panait@windriver.com/
> >
> > But on inefficient unaligned access architectures, there still exist many failures,
> > so some patches about F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS are also needed, backport
> > to 4.19 with a minor context difference.
> >
> > This patch series is based on the series (all now queued up by greg k-h):
> > "bpf: fix verifier selftests, add CVE-2021-29155, CVE-2021-33200 fixes".
> >
> > Björn Töpel (2):
> > selftests/bpf: add "any alignment" annotation for some tests
> > selftests/bpf: Avoid running unprivileged tests with alignment
> > requirements
> >
> > Daniel Borkmann (2):
> > bpf: fix test suite to enable all unpriv program types
> > bpf: test make sure to run unpriv test cases in test_verifier
> >
> > David S. Miller (4):
> > bpf: Add BPF_F_ANY_ALIGNMENT.
> > bpf: Adjust F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS handling in
> > test_verifier.c
> > bpf: Make more use of 'any' alignment in test_verifier.c
> > bpf: Apply F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS to more ACCEPT test
> > cases.
> >
> > Joe Stringer (1):
> > selftests/bpf: Generalize dummy program types
> >
> > include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 14 ++
> > kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 7 +-
> > kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 3 +
> > tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 14 ++
> > tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c | 8 +-
> > tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h | 2 +-
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c | 4 +-
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 224 ++++++++++++++++++++--------
> > 8 files changed, 206 insertions(+), 70 deletions(-)
> >
>
> Hi Greg and Sasha,
>
> Could you please apply this series to 4.19?
Please relax and give us longer than just 2 days to respond :)
I'll go review this now...
greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 4.19 0/9] bpf: fix verifier selftests on inefficient unaligned access architectures
2021-06-02 3:27 [PATCH 4.19 0/9] bpf: fix verifier selftests on inefficient unaligned access architectures Tiezhu Yang
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2021-06-05 7:16 ` [PATCH 4.19 0/9] bpf: fix verifier selftests on inefficient unaligned access architectures Tiezhu Yang
@ 2021-06-08 14:45 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
10 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman @ 2021-06-08 14:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tiezhu Yang; +Cc: Sasha Levin, stable, bpf
On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 11:27:44AM +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
> With the following patch series, all verifier selftests pass on the archs which
> select HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS.
>
> [v2,4.19,00/19] bpf: fix verifier selftests, add CVE-2021-29155, CVE-2021-33200 fixes
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/cover/20210528103810.22025-1-ovidiu.panait@windriver.com/
>
> But on inefficient unaligned access architectures, there still exist many failures,
> so some patches about F_NEEDS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS are also needed, backport
> to 4.19 with a minor context difference.
Looks good, now queued up, thanks.
greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread