From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_GIT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C6DBC76186 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 19:23:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F906218F0 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 19:23:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1563996230; bh=59oAdaqXgoANAtP6mRYrfJhHDP9x6DwuHpXTdgPNU6A=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:List-ID:From; b=zbHbAB6Z4U5sSUsPwIWZGr9ES/Eq95T0nCDg5fQhCpfklXoIuii0AqpkpKBHL0zAx AekAxcglXWw0aAYOLP4fs5Tvo8ObRRaanc0Y9HwBwdqfG049tPKfB7szNvQMzIFOeu 56itFdwMqymabXHdp3zhQENZXZzMFSC7UWywB/3I= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2387874AbfGXTXt (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jul 2019 15:23:49 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:39616 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2387835AbfGXTXq (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jul 2019 15:23:46 -0400 Received: from localhost (83-86-89-107.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C9BC7229F4; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 19:23:44 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1563996225; bh=59oAdaqXgoANAtP6mRYrfJhHDP9x6DwuHpXTdgPNU6A=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=zZ8aLUvlKtOYH6kuIGUsgC1ezUDiCOBkQ7+7K2GZ1XNXmJ+hNwzNy/Nuijtl5lQnX zUbeGHYXZsFnexgEJGFZVCLYLBL++SWnve3nrEPCIEJdjrksQBvF0vA8b/wlLQcywe CYbOvh1KKkS6PbucaxWb5IXiZUWHfGkIBb5rJuZY= From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , stable@vger.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov , Andrii Nakryiko , Daniel Borkmann , Sasha Levin Subject: [PATCH 5.2 023/413] selftests/bpf: adjust verifier scale test Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 21:15:14 +0200 Message-Id: <20190724191737.107564997@linuxfoundation.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.22.0 In-Reply-To: <20190724191735.096702571@linuxfoundation.org> References: <20190724191735.096702571@linuxfoundation.org> User-Agent: quilt/0.66 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org [ Upstream commit 7c0c6095d48dcd0e67c917aa73cdbb2715aafc36 ] Adjust scale tests to check for new jmp sequence limit. BPF_JGT had to be changed to BPF_JEQ because the verifier was too smart. It tracked the known safe range of R0 values and pruned the search earlier before hitting exact 8192 limit. bpf_semi_rand_get() was too (un)?lucky. k = 0; was missing in bpf_fill_scale2. It was testing a bit shorter sequence of jumps than intended. Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin --- 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 288cb740e005..6438d4dc8ae1 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c @@ -207,33 +207,35 @@ static void bpf_fill_rand_ld_dw(struct bpf_test *self) self->retval = (uint32_t)res; } -/* test the sequence of 1k jumps */ +#define MAX_JMP_SEQ 8192 + +/* test the sequence of 8k jumps */ static void bpf_fill_scale1(struct bpf_test *self) { struct bpf_insn *insn = self->fill_insns; int i = 0, k = 0; insn[i++] = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1); - /* test to check that the sequence of 1024 jumps is acceptable */ - while (k++ < 1024) { + /* test to check that the long sequence of jumps is acceptable */ + while (k++ < MAX_JMP_SEQ) { insn[i++] = BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, BPF_FUNC_get_prandom_u32); - insn[i++] = BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_0, bpf_semi_rand_get(), 2); + insn[i++] = BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, bpf_semi_rand_get(), 2); insn[i++] = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10); insn[i++] = BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_6, -8 * (k % 64 + 1)); } - /* every jump adds 1024 steps to insn_processed, so to stay exactly - * within 1m limit add MAX_TEST_INSNS - 1025 MOVs and 1 EXIT + /* every jump adds 1 step to insn_processed, so to stay exactly + * within 1m limit add MAX_TEST_INSNS - MAX_JMP_SEQ - 1 MOVs and 1 EXIT */ - while (i < MAX_TEST_INSNS - 1025) + while (i < MAX_TEST_INSNS - MAX_JMP_SEQ - 1) insn[i++] = BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_MOV, BPF_REG_0, 42); insn[i] = BPF_EXIT_INSN(); self->prog_len = i + 1; self->retval = 42; } -/* test the sequence of 1k jumps in inner most function (function depth 8)*/ +/* test the sequence of 8k jumps in inner most function (function depth 8)*/ static void bpf_fill_scale2(struct bpf_test *self) { struct bpf_insn *insn = self->fill_insns; @@ -245,19 +247,20 @@ static void bpf_fill_scale2(struct bpf_test *self) insn[i++] = BPF_EXIT_INSN(); } insn[i++] = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1); - /* test to check that the sequence of 1024 jumps is acceptable */ - while (k++ < 1024) { + /* test to check that the long sequence of jumps is acceptable */ + k = 0; + while (k++ < MAX_JMP_SEQ) { insn[i++] = BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, BPF_FUNC_get_prandom_u32); - insn[i++] = BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_0, bpf_semi_rand_get(), 2); + insn[i++] = BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, bpf_semi_rand_get(), 2); insn[i++] = BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10); insn[i++] = BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_6, -8 * (k % (64 - 4 * FUNC_NEST) + 1)); } - /* every jump adds 1024 steps to insn_processed, so to stay exactly - * within 1m limit add MAX_TEST_INSNS - 1025 MOVs and 1 EXIT + /* every jump adds 1 step to insn_processed, so to stay exactly + * within 1m limit add MAX_TEST_INSNS - MAX_JMP_SEQ - 1 MOVs and 1 EXIT */ - while (i < MAX_TEST_INSNS - 1025) + while (i < MAX_TEST_INSNS - MAX_JMP_SEQ - 1) insn[i++] = BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_MOV, BPF_REG_0, 42); insn[i] = BPF_EXIT_INSN(); self->prog_len = i + 1; -- 2.20.1