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
next prev 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox