From: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>,
Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v3 02/12] selftests/bpf: Fix test_verifier on 32-bit systems
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2023 23:37:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230222223714.80671-3-iii@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230222223714.80671-1-iii@linux.ibm.com>
bpf_fentry_test_t.a, bpf_iter_meta.seq, bpf_map.ops and
prog_test_ref_kfunc.next are pointers, so access them using BPF_W on
32-bit systems.
Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 5 +++++
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/atomic_fetch_add.c | 2 +-
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bpf_get_stack.c | 2 +-
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c | 4 ++--
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/map_kptr.c | 2 +-
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/map_ptr.c | 2 +-
6 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
index 8b9949bb833d..81a8aef7362c 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@ -62,6 +62,11 @@
#define MAX_FUNC_INFOS 8
#define MAX_BTF_STRINGS 256
#define MAX_BTF_TYPES 256
+#if BITS_PER_LONG == 32
+#define BPF_PTR BPF_W
+#else
+#define BPF_PTR BPF_DW
+#endif
#define INSN_OFF_MASK ((__s16)0xFFFF)
#define INSN_IMM_MASK ((__s32)0xFFFFFFFF)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/atomic_fetch_add.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/atomic_fetch_add.c
index a91de8cd9def..6ed98eb217b3 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/atomic_fetch_add.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/atomic_fetch_add.c
@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@
* because it's kernel memory.
*/
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_3, 1),
- BPF_ATOMIC_OP(BPF_DW, BPF_ADD | BPF_FETCH, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_3, 0),
+ BPF_ATOMIC_OP(BPF_PTR, BPF_ADD | BPF_FETCH, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_3, 0),
/* Done */
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bpf_get_stack.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bpf_get_stack.c
index 3e024c891178..e48b409d1759 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bpf_get_stack.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bpf_get_stack.c
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@
"bpf_get_task_stack return R0 range is refined",
.insns = {
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1, 0),
- BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_6, 0), // ctx->meta->seq
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_PTR, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_6, 0), // ctx->meta->seq
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_7, BPF_REG_1, 8), // ctx->task
BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0), // fixup_map_array_48b
BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0),
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c
index 9d993926bf0e..a59759db8c78 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c
@@ -168,7 +168,7 @@
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0),
- BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_1, 16),
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_PTR, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_1, 16),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_1, -4),
BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL, 0, 0),
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
@@ -230,7 +230,7 @@
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_0),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0),
BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL, 0, 0),
- BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_6, 16),
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_PTR, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_6, 16),
BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, BPF_PSEUDO_KFUNC_CALL, 0, 0),
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/map_kptr.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/map_kptr.c
index 6914904344c0..b8ea6b0b536d 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/map_kptr.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/map_kptr.c
@@ -235,7 +235,7 @@
BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0),
BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 1),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
- BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, 16),
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_PTR, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_0, 16),
BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, BPF_FUNC_this_cpu_ptr),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/map_ptr.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/map_ptr.c
index 17ee84dc7766..b8e308d678b7 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/map_ptr.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/map_ptr.c
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@
.insns = {
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_6, 0),
BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0),
- BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1, 0),
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_PTR, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1, 0),
BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
},
--
2.39.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-22 22:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-02-22 22:37 [PATCH bpf-next v3 00/12] bpf: Support 64-bit pointers to kfuncs Ilya Leoshkevich
2023-02-22 22:37 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 01/12] selftests/bpf: Finish folding after BPF_FUNC_csum_diff Ilya Leoshkevich
2023-02-22 22:37 ` Ilya Leoshkevich [this message]
2023-02-22 22:37 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 03/12] sparc: Update maximum errno Ilya Leoshkevich
2023-02-22 22:37 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 04/12] bpf: sparc64: Emit fixed-length instructions for BPF_PSEUDO_FUNC Ilya Leoshkevich
2023-02-22 22:37 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 05/12] bpf: sparc64: Fix jumping to the first insn Ilya Leoshkevich
2023-02-22 22:37 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 06/12] bpf: sparc64: Use 32-bit tail call index Ilya Leoshkevich
2023-02-22 22:37 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 07/12] bpf, arm: Use bpf_jit_get_func_addr() Ilya Leoshkevich
2023-02-22 22:37 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 08/12] bpf: sparc64: " Ilya Leoshkevich
2023-02-23 9:31 ` Jiri Olsa
2023-02-22 22:37 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 09/12] bpf: x86: " Ilya Leoshkevich
2023-02-22 22:37 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 10/12] bpf, x86_32: " Ilya Leoshkevich
2023-02-22 22:37 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 11/12] bpf: Support 64-bit pointers to kfuncs Ilya Leoshkevich
2023-02-22 23:43 ` Stanislav Fomichev
2023-02-23 8:39 ` Ilya Leoshkevich
2023-02-22 22:37 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 12/12] selftests/bpf: Trim DENYLIST.s390x Ilya Leoshkevich
2023-02-23 17:17 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 00/12] bpf: Support 64-bit pointers to kfuncs Alexei Starovoitov
2023-02-23 20:42 ` Ilya Leoshkevich
2023-02-25 0:02 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-02-27 12:36 ` Ilya Leoshkevich
2023-03-28 12:45 ` Jiri Olsa
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=20230222223714.80671-3-iii@linux.ibm.com \
--to=iii@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=sdf@google.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).