All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com>
To: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com>,
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
	Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
	Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
	KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next 4/4] selftests/bpf: add reason of rejection in ld_imm64
Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 19:37:28 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220520113728.12708-5-shung-hsi.yu@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220520113728.12708-1-shung-hsi.yu@suse.com>

It may not be immediately clear why that ld_imm64 test cases are
rejected, especially for test1 and test2 where JMP to the 2nd
instruction of BPF_LD_IMM64 is performed.

Add brief explaination of why each test case in verifier/ld_imm64.c
should be rejected.

Signed-off-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@suse.com>
---
 .../testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/ld_imm64.c | 20 ++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/ld_imm64.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/ld_imm64.c
index f9297900cea6..021312641aaf 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/ld_imm64.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/ld_imm64.c
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
+/* Note: BPF_LD_IMM64 is composed of two instructions of class BPF_LD */
 {
-	"test1 ld_imm64",
+	"test1 ld_imm64: reject JMP to 2nd instruction of BPF_LD_IMM64",
 	.insns = {
 	BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_1, 0, 1),
 	BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_0, 0),
@@ -14,7 +15,7 @@
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
 {
-	"test2 ld_imm64",
+	"test2 ld_imm64: reject JMP to 2nd instruction of BPF_LD_IMM64",
 	.insns = {
 	BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_1, 0, 1),
 	BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_0, 0),
@@ -28,7 +29,7 @@
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
 {
-	"test3 ld_imm64",
+	"test3 ld_imm64: reject incomplete BPF_LD_IMM64 instruction",
 	.insns = {
 	BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_1, 0, 1),
 	BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | BPF_DW, 0, 0, 0, 0),
@@ -42,7 +43,7 @@
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
 {
-	"test4 ld_imm64",
+	"test4 ld_imm64: reject incomplete BPF_LD_IMM64 instruction",
 	.insns = {
 	BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | BPF_DW, 0, 0, 0, 0),
 	BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
@@ -70,7 +71,7 @@
 	.retval = 1,
 },
 {
-	"test8 ld_imm64",
+	"test8 ld_imm64: reject 1st off!=0",
 	.insns = {
 	BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | BPF_DW, 0, 0, 1, 1),
 	BPF_RAW_INSN(0, 0, 0, 0, 1),
@@ -80,7 +81,7 @@
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
 {
-	"test9 ld_imm64",
+	"test9 ld_imm64: reject 2nd off!=0",
 	.insns = {
 	BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | BPF_DW, 0, 0, 0, 1),
 	BPF_RAW_INSN(0, 0, 0, 1, 1),
@@ -90,7 +91,7 @@
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
 {
-	"test10 ld_imm64",
+	"test10 ld_imm64: reject 2nd dst_reg!=0",
 	.insns = {
 	BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | BPF_DW, 0, 0, 0, 1),
 	BPF_RAW_INSN(0, BPF_REG_1, 0, 0, 1),
@@ -100,7 +101,7 @@
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
 {
-	"test11 ld_imm64",
+	"test11 ld_imm64: reject 2nd src_reg!=0",
 	.insns = {
 	BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | BPF_DW, 0, 0, 0, 1),
 	BPF_RAW_INSN(0, 0, BPF_REG_1, 0, 1),
@@ -113,6 +114,7 @@
 	"test12 ld_imm64",
 	.insns = {
 	BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 0),
+	/* BPF_REG_1 is interpreted as BPF_PSEUDO_MAP_FD */
 	BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | BPF_DW, 0, BPF_REG_1, 0, 1),
 	BPF_RAW_INSN(0, 0, 0, 0, 0),
 	BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
@@ -121,7 +123,7 @@
 	.result = REJECT,
 },
 {
-	"test13 ld_imm64",
+	"test13 ld_imm64: 2nd src_reg!=0",
 	.insns = {
 	BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 0),
 	BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | BPF_DW, 0, BPF_REG_1, 0, 1),
-- 
2.36.1


  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-05-20 11:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-05-20 11:37 [PATCH bpf-next 0/4] bpf: verifier: remove redundant opcode checks Shung-Hsi Yu
2022-05-20 11:37 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/4] bpf: verifier: update resolve_pseudo_ldimm64() comment Shung-Hsi Yu
2022-05-20 11:37 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/4] bpf: verifier: explain opcode check in check_ld_imm() Shung-Hsi Yu
2022-05-20 23:50   ` Yonghong Song
2022-05-21  0:25     ` Yonghong Song
2022-05-24  7:10       ` Shung-Hsi Yu
2022-05-24 15:12         ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-05-26  8:59           ` Shung-Hsi Yu
2022-05-20 11:37 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/4] bpf: verifier: remove redundant opcode checks Shung-Hsi Yu
2022-05-20 22:46   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-05-20 11:37 ` Shung-Hsi Yu [this message]
2022-05-21  0:27   ` [PATCH bpf-next 4/4] selftests/bpf: add reason of rejection in ld_imm64 Yonghong Song
2022-05-24  4:49     ` Shung-Hsi Yu

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=20220520113728.12708-5-shung-hsi.yu@suse.com \
    --to=shung-hsi.yu@suse.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=kafai@fb.com \
    --cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --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 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.