From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
To: <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: <daniel@iogearbox.net>, <andriin@fb.com>,
<netdev@vger.kernel.org>, <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
<kernel-team@fb.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 2/9] selftests/bpf: fix tests due to const spill/fill
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 00:25:50 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190614072557.196239-3-ast@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190614072557.196239-1-ast@kernel.org>
fix tests that incorrectly assumed that the verifier
cannot track constants through stack.
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>
---
.../bpf/verifier/direct_packet_access.c | 3 +-
.../bpf/verifier/helper_access_var_len.c | 28 ++++++++++---------
2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/direct_packet_access.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/direct_packet_access.c
index d5c596fdc4b9..2c5fbe7bcd27 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/direct_packet_access.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/direct_packet_access.c
@@ -511,7 +511,8 @@
offsetof(struct __sk_buff, data)),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_3, BPF_REG_1,
offsetof(struct __sk_buff, data_end)),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0xffffffff),
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1,
+ offsetof(struct __sk_buff, mark)),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -8),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_10, -8),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_0, 0xffff),
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/helper_access_var_len.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/helper_access_var_len.c
index 1f39d845c64f..67ab12410050 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/helper_access_var_len.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/helper_access_var_len.c
@@ -29,9 +29,9 @@
{
"helper access to variable memory: stack, bitwise AND, zero included",
.insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 8),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -64),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 16),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, -128),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, -128),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_2, 64),
@@ -46,9 +46,9 @@
{
"helper access to variable memory: stack, bitwise AND + JMP, wrong max",
.insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 8),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -64),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 16),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, -128),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, -128),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_2, 65),
@@ -122,9 +122,9 @@
{
"helper access to variable memory: stack, JMP, bounds + offset",
.insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 8),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -64),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 16),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, -128),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, -128),
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_2, 64, 5),
@@ -143,9 +143,9 @@
{
"helper access to variable memory: stack, JMP, wrong max",
.insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 8),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -64),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 16),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, -128),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, -128),
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_2, 65, 4),
@@ -163,9 +163,9 @@
{
"helper access to variable memory: stack, JMP, no max check",
.insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 8),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -64),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 16),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, -128),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, -128),
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_4, 0),
@@ -183,9 +183,9 @@
{
"helper access to variable memory: stack, JMP, no min check",
.insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 8),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -64),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 16),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, -128),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, -128),
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JGT, BPF_REG_2, 64, 3),
@@ -201,9 +201,9 @@
{
"helper access to variable memory: stack, JMP (signed), no min check",
.insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 8),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -64),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 16),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_2, -128),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, -128),
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGT, BPF_REG_2, 64, 3),
@@ -244,6 +244,7 @@
{
"helper access to variable memory: map, JMP, wrong max",
.insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1, 8),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, 0, 0),
@@ -251,7 +252,7 @@
BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 10),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, sizeof(struct test_val)),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_6),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_2, -128),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10, -128),
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGT, BPF_REG_2, sizeof(struct test_val) + 1, 4),
@@ -262,7 +263,7 @@
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
- .fixup_map_hash_48b = { 3 },
+ .fixup_map_hash_48b = { 4 },
.errstr = "invalid access to map value, value_size=48 off=0 size=49",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACEPOINT,
@@ -296,6 +297,7 @@
{
"helper access to variable memory: map adjusted, JMP, wrong max",
.insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1, 8),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, 0, 0),
@@ -304,7 +306,7 @@
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_0, 0, 11),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 20),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, sizeof(struct test_val)),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_6),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_2, -128),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10, -128),
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JSGT, BPF_REG_2, sizeof(struct test_val) - 19, 4),
@@ -315,7 +317,7 @@
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
- .fixup_map_hash_48b = { 3 },
+ .fixup_map_hash_48b = { 4 },
.errstr = "R1 min value is outside of the array range",
.result = REJECT,
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACEPOINT,
@@ -337,8 +339,8 @@
{
"helper access to variable memory: size > 0 not allowed on NULL (ARG_PTR_TO_MEM_OR_NULL)",
.insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 0),
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_1, 0),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 1),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_2, -128),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10, -128),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_2, 64),
@@ -562,6 +564,7 @@
{
"helper access to variable memory: 8 bytes leak",
.insns = {
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_1, 8),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_10),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -64),
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
@@ -572,7 +575,6 @@
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -24),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -16),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -8),
- BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_2, 1),
BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_2, -128),
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10, -128),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_AND, BPF_REG_2, 63),
--
2.20.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-14 7:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-14 7:25 [PATCH v2 bpf-next 0/9] bpf: bounded loops and other features Alexei Starovoitov
2019-06-14 7:25 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 1/9] bpf: track spill/fill of constants Alexei Starovoitov
2019-06-14 16:29 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2019-06-14 7:25 ` Alexei Starovoitov [this message]
2019-06-14 7:25 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 3/9] bpf: extend is_branch_taken to registers Alexei Starovoitov
2019-06-14 16:38 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2019-06-14 7:25 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 4/9] bpf: introduce bounded loops Alexei Starovoitov
2019-06-14 7:25 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 5/9] bpf: fix callees pruning callers Alexei Starovoitov
2019-06-14 7:25 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 6/9] selftests/bpf: fix tests Alexei Starovoitov
2019-06-14 7:25 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 7/9] selftests/bpf: add basic verifier tests for loops Alexei Starovoitov
2019-06-14 7:25 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 8/9] selftests/bpf: add realistic loop tests Alexei Starovoitov
2019-06-14 16:49 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2019-06-14 7:25 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 9/9] bpf: precise scalar_value tracking Alexei Starovoitov
2019-06-14 21:45 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2019-06-15 19:00 ` Alexei Starovoitov
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=20190614072557.196239-3-ast@kernel.org \
--to=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=andriin@fb.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--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.