From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@fb.com>
To: "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
<kernel-team@fb.com>
Subject: [PATCH net-next 6/9] bpf: fix stack_depth usage by test_bpf.ko
Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:31:32 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170530203135.3642768-7-ast@fb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170530203135.3642768-1-ast@fb.com>
test_bpf.ko doesn't call verifier before selecting interpreter or JITing,
hence the tests need to manually specify the amount of stack they consume.
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
---
lib/test_bpf.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/lib/test_bpf.c b/lib/test_bpf.c
index be88cbaadde3..070bde56474c 100644
--- a/lib/test_bpf.c
+++ b/lib/test_bpf.c
@@ -84,6 +84,7 @@ struct bpf_test {
} test[MAX_SUBTESTS];
int (*fill_helper)(struct bpf_test *self);
__u8 frag_data[MAX_DATA];
+ int stack_depth; /* for eBPF only, since tests don't call verifier */
};
/* Large test cases need separate allocation and fill handler. */
@@ -455,6 +456,7 @@ static int __bpf_fill_stxdw(struct bpf_test *self, int size)
self->u.ptr.insns = insn;
self->u.ptr.len = len;
+ self->stack_depth = 40;
return 0;
}
@@ -2317,7 +2319,8 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
{ 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0x08, 0x06, 0, 0,
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
0x10, 0xbf, 0x48, 0xd6, 0x43, 0xd6},
- { { 38, 256 } }
+ { { 38, 256 } },
+ .stack_depth = 64,
},
/* BPF_ALU | BPF_MOV | BPF_X */
{
@@ -4169,6 +4172,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
INTERNAL,
{ },
{ { 0, 0xff } },
+ .stack_depth = 40,
},
{
"ST_MEM_B: Store/Load byte: max positive",
@@ -4181,6 +4185,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
INTERNAL,
{ },
{ { 0, 0x7f } },
+ .stack_depth = 40,
},
{
"STX_MEM_B: Store/Load byte: max negative",
@@ -4194,6 +4199,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
INTERNAL,
{ },
{ { 0, 0xff } },
+ .stack_depth = 40,
},
{
"ST_MEM_H: Store/Load half word: max negative",
@@ -4206,6 +4212,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
INTERNAL,
{ },
{ { 0, 0xffff } },
+ .stack_depth = 40,
},
{
"ST_MEM_H: Store/Load half word: max positive",
@@ -4218,6 +4225,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
INTERNAL,
{ },
{ { 0, 0x7fff } },
+ .stack_depth = 40,
},
{
"STX_MEM_H: Store/Load half word: max negative",
@@ -4231,6 +4239,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
INTERNAL,
{ },
{ { 0, 0xffff } },
+ .stack_depth = 40,
},
{
"ST_MEM_W: Store/Load word: max negative",
@@ -4243,6 +4252,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
INTERNAL,
{ },
{ { 0, 0xffffffff } },
+ .stack_depth = 40,
},
{
"ST_MEM_W: Store/Load word: max positive",
@@ -4255,6 +4265,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
INTERNAL,
{ },
{ { 0, 0x7fffffff } },
+ .stack_depth = 40,
},
{
"STX_MEM_W: Store/Load word: max negative",
@@ -4268,6 +4279,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
INTERNAL,
{ },
{ { 0, 0xffffffff } },
+ .stack_depth = 40,
},
{
"ST_MEM_DW: Store/Load double word: max negative",
@@ -4280,6 +4292,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
INTERNAL,
{ },
{ { 0, 0xffffffff } },
+ .stack_depth = 40,
},
{
"ST_MEM_DW: Store/Load double word: max negative 2",
@@ -4297,6 +4310,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
INTERNAL,
{ },
{ { 0, 0x1 } },
+ .stack_depth = 40,
},
{
"ST_MEM_DW: Store/Load double word: max positive",
@@ -4309,6 +4323,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
INTERNAL,
{ },
{ { 0, 0x7fffffff } },
+ .stack_depth = 40,
},
{
"STX_MEM_DW: Store/Load double word: max negative",
@@ -4322,6 +4337,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
INTERNAL,
{ },
{ { 0, 0xffffffff } },
+ .stack_depth = 40,
},
/* BPF_STX | BPF_XADD | BPF_W/DW */
{
@@ -4336,6 +4352,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
INTERNAL,
{ },
{ { 0, 0x22 } },
+ .stack_depth = 40,
},
{
"STX_XADD_W: Test side-effects, r10: 0x12 + 0x10 = 0x22",
@@ -4351,6 +4368,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
INTERNAL,
{ },
{ { 0, 0 } },
+ .stack_depth = 40,
},
{
"STX_XADD_W: Test side-effects, r0: 0x12 + 0x10 = 0x22",
@@ -4363,6 +4381,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
INTERNAL,
{ },
{ { 0, 0x12 } },
+ .stack_depth = 40,
},
{
"STX_XADD_W: X + 1 + 1 + 1 + ...",
@@ -4384,6 +4403,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
INTERNAL,
{ },
{ { 0, 0x22 } },
+ .stack_depth = 40,
},
{
"STX_XADD_DW: Test side-effects, r10: 0x12 + 0x10 = 0x22",
@@ -4399,6 +4419,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
INTERNAL,
{ },
{ { 0, 0 } },
+ .stack_depth = 40,
},
{
"STX_XADD_DW: Test side-effects, r0: 0x12 + 0x10 = 0x22",
@@ -4411,6 +4432,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
INTERNAL,
{ },
{ { 0, 0x12 } },
+ .stack_depth = 40,
},
{
"STX_XADD_DW: X + 1 + 1 + 1 + ...",
@@ -5809,6 +5831,7 @@ static struct bpf_prog *generate_filter(int which, int *err)
/* Type doesn't really matter here as long as it's not unspec. */
fp->type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER;
memcpy(fp->insnsi, fptr, fp->len * sizeof(struct bpf_insn));
+ fp->aux->stack_depth = tests[which].stack_depth;
/* We cannot error here as we don't need type compatibility
* checks.
--
2.9.3
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-30 20:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-05-30 20:31 [PATCH net-next 0/9] bpf: stack depth tracking Alexei Starovoitov
2017-05-30 20:31 ` [PATCH net-next 1/9] bpf: free up BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL | BPF_X opcode Alexei Starovoitov
2017-05-30 20:31 ` [PATCH net-next 2/9] bpf: split bpf core interpreter Alexei Starovoitov
2017-05-30 20:31 ` [PATCH net-next 3/9] bpf: teach verifier to track stack depth Alexei Starovoitov
2017-05-30 20:31 ` [PATCH net-next 4/9] bpf: reconcile bpf_tail_call and stack_depth Alexei Starovoitov
2017-05-30 20:31 ` [PATCH net-next 5/9] bpf: track stack depth of classic bpf programs Alexei Starovoitov
2017-05-30 20:31 ` Alexei Starovoitov [this message]
2017-05-31 18:15 ` [PATCH net-next 6/9] bpf: fix stack_depth usage by test_bpf.ko David Miller
2017-05-31 18:39 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2017-05-31 18:43 ` David Miller
2017-05-31 18:45 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2017-05-31 22:41 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2017-05-31 23:30 ` David Miller
2017-06-06 10:19 ` Daniel Borkmann
2017-05-30 20:31 ` [PATCH net-next 7/9] bpf: use different interpreter depending on required stack size Alexei Starovoitov
2017-05-30 20:31 ` [PATCH net-next 8/9] bpf: change x86 JITed program stack layout Alexei Starovoitov
2017-05-30 20:31 ` [PATCH net-next 9/9] bpf: take advantage of stack_depth tracking in x64 JIT Alexei Starovoitov
2017-05-31 23:30 ` [PATCH net-next 0/9] bpf: stack depth tracking 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=20170530203135.3642768-7-ast@fb.com \
--to=ast@fb.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--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 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.