linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Edward Cree <ecree@solarflare.com>
To: <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@fb.com>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Cc: <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	iovisor-dev <iovisor-dev@lists.iovisor.org>
Subject: [PATCH v5 net-next 10/12] selftests/bpf: variable offset negative tests
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 15:29:51 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <54be71f8-308d-da11-a447-abe780edc2b7@solarflare.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ad840039-8d4a-b2a9-b2eb-a8f079926b53@solarflare.com>

Variable ctx accesses and stack accesses aren't allowed, because we can't
 determine what type of value will be read.

Signed-off-by: Edward Cree <ecree@solarflare.com>
---
 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 876b878..65aa562 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@ -5980,6 +5980,47 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
 		.errstr = "R0 min value is negative, either use unsigned index or do a if (index >=0) check.",
 		.result = REJECT,
 	},
+	{
+		"variable-offset ctx access",
+		.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),
+			/* add it to skb.  We now have either &skb->len or
+			 * &skb->pkt_type, but we don't know which
+			 */
+			BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2),
+			/* dereference it */
+			BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, 0),
+			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+		},
+		.errstr = "variable ctx access var_off=(0x0; 0x4)",
+		.result = REJECT,
+		.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_LWT_IN,
+	},
+	{
+		"variable-offset stack access",
+		.insns = {
+			/* Fill the top 8 bytes of the stack */
+			BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0),
+			/* 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 */
+			BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_2, 0),
+			BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+		},
+		.errstr = "variable stack access var_off=(0xfffffffffffffff8; 0x4)",
+		.result = REJECT,
+		.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_LWT_IN,
+	},
 };
 
 static int probe_filter_length(const struct bpf_insn *fp)

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-08-07 14:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-08-07 14:21 [PATCH v5 net-next 00/12] bpf: rewrite value tracking in verifier Edward Cree
2017-08-07 14:26 ` [PATCH v5 net-next 01/12] bpf/verifier: rework value tracking Edward Cree
2017-08-07 14:26 ` [PATCH v5 net-next 02/12] bpf/verifier: track signed and unsigned min/max values Edward Cree
2017-08-07 14:26 ` [PATCH v5 net-next 03/12] bpf/verifier: more concise register state logs for constant var_off Edward Cree
2017-08-07 14:27 ` [PATCH v5 net-next 04/12] selftests/bpf: change test_verifier expectations Edward Cree
2017-08-07 14:27 ` [PATCH v5 net-next 05/12] selftests/bpf: rewrite test_align Edward Cree
2017-08-07 14:28 ` [PATCH v5 net-next 06/12] selftests/bpf: add a test to test_align Edward Cree
2017-08-07 14:28 ` [PATCH v5 net-next 07/12] selftests/bpf: add test for bogus operations on pointers Edward Cree
2017-08-07 14:29 ` [PATCH v5 net-next 08/12] selftests/bpf: don't try to access past MAX_PACKET_OFF in test_verifier Edward Cree
2017-08-07 14:29 ` [PATCH v5 net-next 09/12] selftests/bpf: add tests for subtraction & negative numbers Edward Cree
2017-08-07 14:29 ` Edward Cree [this message]
2017-08-07 14:30 ` [PATCH v5 net-next 11/12] Documentation: describe the new eBPF verifier value tracking behaviour Edward Cree
2017-08-07 14:30 ` [PATCH v5 net-next 12/12] bpf/verifier: increase complexity limit to 128k Edward Cree
2017-08-08  0:46 ` [PATCH v5 net-next 00/12] bpf: rewrite value tracking in verifier Daniel Borkmann
2017-08-09  0:51   ` David Miller

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=54be71f8-308d-da11-a447-abe780edc2b7@solarflare.com \
    --to=ecree@solarflare.com \
    --cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
    --cc=ast@fb.com \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=iovisor-dev@lists.iovisor.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@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 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).