All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org
Cc: andrii@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, kernel-team@fb.com,
	yhs@fb.com, memxor@gmail.com, ecree.xilinx@gmail.com
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next 6/7] selftests/bpf: Add pruning test case for bpf_spin_lock
Date: Fri,  9 Dec 2022 15:57:32 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221209135733.28851-7-eddyz87@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221209135733.28851-1-eddyz87@gmail.com>

From: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>

Test that when reg->id is not same for the same register of type
PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE between current and old explored state, we currently
return false from regsafe and continue exploring.

Without the fix in prior commit, the test case fails.

Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
---
 .../selftests/bpf/verifier/spin_lock.c        | 39 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/spin_lock.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/spin_lock.c
index 781621facae4..0a8dcfc37fc6 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/spin_lock.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/spin_lock.c
@@ -331,3 +331,42 @@
 	.errstr = "inside bpf_spin_lock",
 	.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
 },
+{
+	"spin_lock: regsafe compare reg->id for map value",
+	.insns = {
+	BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1),
+	BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_6, offsetof(struct __sk_buff, mark)),
+	BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0),
+	BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_9, BPF_REG_1),
+	BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_10, -4, 0),
+	BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
+	BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -4),
+	BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
+	BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),
+	BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+	BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_7, BPF_REG_0),
+	BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_9),
+	BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
+	BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -4),
+	BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
+	BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),
+	BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+	BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_8, BPF_REG_0),
+	BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_7),
+	BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 4),
+	BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, BPF_FUNC_spin_lock),
+	BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, BPF_REG_6, 0, 1),
+	BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, 1),
+	BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_7, BPF_REG_8),
+	BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_7),
+	BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, 4),
+	BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, BPF_FUNC_spin_unlock),
+	BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+	BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+	},
+	.fixup_map_spin_lock = { 2 },
+	.result = REJECT,
+	.errstr = "bpf_spin_unlock of different lock",
+	.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
+	.flags = BPF_F_TEST_STATE_FREQ,
+},
-- 
2.34.1


  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-12-09 13:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-12-09 13:57 [PATCH bpf-next 0/7] stricter register ID checking in regsafe() Eduard Zingerman
2022-12-09 13:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/7] bpf: regsafe() must not skip check_ids() Eduard Zingerman
2022-12-14  0:35   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-12-14 13:25     ` Eduard Zingerman
2022-12-14 19:37       ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-12-09 13:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/7] selftests/bpf: test cases for regsafe() bug skipping check_id() Eduard Zingerman
2022-12-09 13:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/7] bpf: states_equal() must build idmap for all function frames Eduard Zingerman
2022-12-14  0:35   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-12-14 15:33     ` Eduard Zingerman
2022-12-14 17:24       ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-12-09 13:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next 4/7] selftests/bpf: verify states_equal() maintains idmap across all frames Eduard Zingerman
2022-12-14  0:35   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-12-14 16:38     ` Eduard Zingerman
2022-12-14 17:10       ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-12-09 13:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next 5/7] bpf: use check_ids() for active_lock comparison Eduard Zingerman
2022-12-09 13:57 ` Eduard Zingerman [this message]
2022-12-10 21:45   ` [PATCH bpf-next 6/7] selftests/bpf: Add pruning test case for bpf_spin_lock Alexei Starovoitov
2022-12-09 13:57 ` [PATCH bpf-next 7/7] selftests/bpf: test case for relaxed prunning of active_lock.id Eduard Zingerman
2022-12-10 21:50 ` [PATCH bpf-next 0/7] stricter register ID checking in regsafe() patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
2022-12-14  0:34 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-12-14 16:28   ` Eduard Zingerman

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=20221209135733.28851-7-eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --to=eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=ecree.xilinx@gmail.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
    --cc=memxor@gmail.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.