BPF List
 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, martin.lau@linux.dev,
	kernel-team@fb.com, yonghong.song@linux.dev, jemarch@gnu.org,
	thinker.li@gmail.com, Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next 2/5] selftests/bpf: adjust dummy_st_ops_success to detect additional error
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 18:28:18 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240424012821.595216-3-eddyz87@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240424012821.595216-1-eddyz87@gmail.com>

As reported by Jose E. Marchesi in off-list discussion, GCC and LLVM
generate slightly different code for dummy_st_ops_success/test_1():

  SEC("struct_ops/test_1")
  int BPF_PROG(test_1, struct bpf_dummy_ops_state *state)
  {
  	int ret;

  	if (!state)
  		return 0xf2f3f4f5;

  	ret = state->val;
  	state->val = 0x5a;
  	return ret;
  }

  GCC-generated                  LLVM-generated
  ----------------------------   ---------------------------
  0: r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 0x0)     0: w0 = -0xd0c0b0b
  1: if r1 == 0x0 goto 5f        1: r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 0x0)
  2: r0 = *(s32 *)(r1 + 0x0)     2: if r1 == 0x0 goto 6f
  3: *(u32 *)(r1 + 0x0) = 0x5a   3: r0 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 0x0)
  4: exit                        4: w2 = 0x5a
  5: r0 = -0xd0c0b0b             5: *(u32 *)(r1 + 0x0) = r2
  6: exit                        6: exit

If the 'state' argument is not marked as nullable in
net/bpf/bpf_dummy_struct_ops.c, the verifier would assume that
'r1 == 0x0' is never true:
- for the GCC version, this means that instructions #5-6 would be
  marked as dead and removed;
- for the LLVM version, all instructions would be marked as live.

The test dummy_st_ops/dummy_init_ret_value actually sets the 'state'
parameter to NULL.

Therefore, when the 'state' argument is not marked as nullable,
the GCC-generated version of the code would trigger a NULL pointer
dereference at instruction #3.

This patch updates the test_1() test case to always follow a shape
similar to the GCC-generated version above, in order to verify whether
the 'state' nullability is marked correctly.

Reported-by: Jose E. Marchesi <jemarch@gnu.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
---
 .../selftests/bpf/progs/dummy_st_ops_success.c      | 13 +++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/dummy_st_ops_success.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/dummy_st_ops_success.c
index 1efa746c25dc..cc7b69b001aa 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/dummy_st_ops_success.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/dummy_st_ops_success.c
@@ -11,8 +11,17 @@ int BPF_PROG(test_1, struct bpf_dummy_ops_state *state)
 {
 	int ret;
 
-	if (!state)
-		return 0xf2f3f4f5;
+	/* Check that 'state' nullable status is detected correctly.
+	 * If 'state' argument would be assumed non-null by verifier
+	 * the code below would be deleted as dead (which it shouldn't).
+	 * Hide it from the compiler behind 'asm' block to avoid
+	 * unnecessary optimizations.
+	 */
+	asm volatile (
+		"if %[state] != 0 goto +2;"
+		"r0 = 0xf2f3f4f5;"
+		"exit;"
+	::[state]"p"(state));
 
 	ret = state->val;
 	state->val = 0x5a;
-- 
2.34.1


  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-04-24  1:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-04-24  1:28 [PATCH bpf-next 0/5] check bpf_dummy_struct_ops program params for test runs Eduard Zingerman
2024-04-24  1:28 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/5] bpf: mark bpf_dummy_struct_ops.test_1 parameter as nullable Eduard Zingerman
2024-04-24  1:28 ` Eduard Zingerman [this message]
2024-04-24  1:28 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/5] selftests/bpf: do not pass NULL for non-nullable params in dummy_st_ops Eduard Zingerman
2024-04-24  1:28 ` [PATCH bpf-next 4/5] bpf: check bpf_dummy_struct_ops program params for test runs Eduard Zingerman
2024-04-24  1:28 ` [PATCH bpf-next 5/5] selftests/bpf: dummy_st_ops should reject 0 for non-nullable params Eduard Zingerman
2024-04-25 19:50 ` [PATCH bpf-next 0/5] check bpf_dummy_struct_ops program params for test runs patchwork-bot+netdevbpf

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=20240424012821.595216-3-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=jemarch@gnu.org \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
    --cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
    --cc=thinker.li@gmail.com \
    --cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
    /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