From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>,
Paolo Pisati <p.pisati@gmail.com>
Cc: 20190710231439.GD32439@tassilo.jf.intel.com,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>,
Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@netronome.com>,
Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fold checksum at the end of bpf_csum_diff and fix
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 17:15:02 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8bd99845-4d59-f0a4-3b50-ab6d539b36bc@iogearbox.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4BzbGLmuZ48vFUCrDW6VC7_YrkW_0NpgpgXNQEzF_dEqgnA@mail.gmail.com>
On 07/12/2019 01:50 AM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 2:32 AM Paolo Pisati <p.pisati@gmail.com> wrote:
>> From: Paolo Pisati <paolo.pisati@canonical.com>
>>
>> After applying patch 0001, all checksum implementations i could test (x86-64, arm64 and
>> arm), now agree on the return value.
>>
>> Patch 0002 fix the expected return value for test #13: i did the calculation manually,
>> and it correspond.
>>
>> Unfortunately, after applying patch 0001, other test cases now fail in
>> test_verifier:
Thanks for catching, sigh. :/
>> $ sudo ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier
>> ...
>> #417/p helper access to variable memory: size = 0 allowed on NULL (ARG_PTR_TO_MEM_OR_NULL) FAIL retval 65535 != 0
>> #419/p helper access to variable memory: size = 0 allowed on != NULL stack pointer (ARG_PTR_TO_MEM_OR_NULL) FAIL retval 65535 != 0
>> #423/p helper access to variable memory: size possible = 0 allowed on != NULL packet pointer (ARG_PTR_TO_MEM_OR_NULL) FAIL retval 65535 != 0
>
> I'm not entirely sure this fix is correct, given these failures, to be honest.
>
> Let's wait for someone who understands intended semantics for
> bpf_csum_diff, before changing returned value so drastically.
>
> But in any case, fixes for these test failures should be in your patch
> series as well.
Your change would actually break applications. The bpf_csum_diff() helper is
heavily used with cascading so one result can be fed into another bpf_csum_diff()
call as seed. Quick test on x86-64:
static int __init foo(void)
{
u8 data[32 * sizeof(u32)];
u32 res1, res2, res3;
int i;
prandom_bytes(data, sizeof(data));
res1 = csum_fold(csum_partial(data, sizeof(data), 0));
for (i = sizeof(u32); i < sizeof(data); i += sizeof(u32)) {
res2 = csum_fold(csum_partial(data, i, 0));
res2 = csum_fold(csum_partial(data+i, sizeof(data)-i, res2));
res3 = csum_partial(data, i, 0);
res3 = csum_fold(csum_partial(data+i, sizeof(data)-i, res3));
printk("%8d: [%4x (reference), %4x (unfolded), %4x (folded)]\n", i, res1, res3, res2);
}
return -1;
}
Gives for all three:
[19113.233942] 4: [6b70 (reference), 6b70 (unfolded), 223d (folded)]
[19113.233943] 8: [6b70 (reference), 6b70 (unfolded), a812 (folded)]
[19113.233943] 12: [6b70 (reference), 6b70 (unfolded), 1c26 (folded)]
[19113.233944] 16: [6b70 (reference), 6b70 (unfolded), 4f76 (folded)]
[19113.233944] 20: [6b70 (reference), 6b70 (unfolded), 2801 (folded)]
[19113.233945] 24: [6b70 (reference), 6b70 (unfolded), b63 (folded)]
[19113.233945] 28: [6b70 (reference), 6b70 (unfolded), 2fe0 (folded)]
[19113.233946] 32: [6b70 (reference), 6b70 (unfolded), 18a2 (folded)]
[19113.233946] 36: [6b70 (reference), 6b70 (unfolded), 2597 (folded)]
[19113.233947] 40: [6b70 (reference), 6b70 (unfolded), 2f8e (folded)]
[19113.233947] 44: [6b70 (reference), 6b70 (unfolded), b8af (folded)]
[19113.233948] 48: [6b70 (reference), 6b70 (unfolded), fb8b (folded)]
[19113.233948] 52: [6b70 (reference), 6b70 (unfolded), e9c0 (folded)]
[19113.233949] 56: [6b70 (reference), 6b70 (unfolded), 6af1 (folded)]
[19113.233949] 60: [6b70 (reference), 6b70 (unfolded), d7f4 (folded)]
[19113.233949] 64: [6b70 (reference), 6b70 (unfolded), 8bc6 (folded)]
[19113.233950] 68: [6b70 (reference), 6b70 (unfolded), 8718 (folded)]
[19113.233950] 72: [6b70 (reference), 6b70 (unfolded), 27d8 (folded)]
[19113.233951] 76: [6b70 (reference), 6b70 (unfolded), a2db (folded)]
[19113.233952] 80: [6b70 (reference), 6b70 (unfolded), 3fd (folded)]
[19113.233952] 84: [6b70 (reference), 6b70 (unfolded), 4be5 (folded)]
[19113.233952] 88: [6b70 (reference), 6b70 (unfolded), 41ad (folded)]
[19113.233953] 92: [6b70 (reference), 6b70 (unfolded), ca9b (folded)]
[19113.233953] 96: [6b70 (reference), 6b70 (unfolded), f8ec (folded)]
[19113.233954] 100: [6b70 (reference), 6b70 (unfolded), 5451 (folded)]
[19113.233954] 104: [6b70 (reference), 6b70 (unfolded), 763 (folded)]
[19113.233955] 108: [6b70 (reference), 6b70 (unfolded), e37c (folded)]
[19113.233955] 112: [6b70 (reference), 6b70 (unfolded), 4ee6 (folded)]
[19113.233956] 116: [6b70 (reference), 6b70 (unfolded), 4f73 (folded)]
[19113.233956] 120: [6b70 (reference), 6b70 (unfolded), 1cfd (folded)]
[19113.233957] 124: [6b70 (reference), 6b70 (unfolded), 7d1a (folded)]
I'll take a look next week wrt fixing this uniformly for all archs.
Thanks,
Daniel
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-12 15:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-11 9:31 [PATCH 0/2] Fold checksum at the end of bpf_csum_diff and fix Paolo Pisati
2019-07-11 9:31 ` [PATCH 1/2] bpf: bpf_csum_diff: fold the checksum before returning the value Paolo Pisati
2019-07-11 9:31 ` [PATCH 2/2] bpf, selftest: fix checksum value for test #13 Paolo Pisati
2019-07-11 23:50 ` [PATCH 0/2] Fold checksum at the end of bpf_csum_diff and fix Andrii Nakryiko
2019-07-12 15:15 ` Daniel Borkmann [this message]
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=8bd99845-4d59-f0a4-3b50-ab6d539b36bc@iogearbox.net \
--to=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=20190710231439.GD32439@tassilo.jf.intel.com \
--cc=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=jakub.kicinski@netronome.com \
--cc=jiong.wang@netronome.com \
--cc=kafai@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=p.pisati@gmail.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
--cc=yhs@fb.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).