[PATCH bpf v1 2/2] selftests/bpf: verify that sync_linked_regs preserves subreg_def

[Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>]

This test was added because of a bug in verifier.c:sync_linked_regs(),
upon range propagation it destroyed subreg_def marks for registers.
The test is written in a way to return an upper half of a register
that is affected by range propagation and must have it's subreg_def
preserved. This gives a return value of 0 and leads to undefined
return value if subreg_def mark is not preserved.

Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
---
 .../selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_scalar_ids.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 67 insertions(+)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_scalar_ids.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_scalar_ids.c
index 2ecf77b623e0..7c5e5e6d10eb 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_scalar_ids.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_scalar_ids.c
@@ -760,4 +760,71 @@ __naked void two_old_ids_one_cur_id(void)
 	: __clobber_all);
 }
 
+SEC("socket")
+/* Note the flag, see verifier.c:opt_subreg_zext_lo32_rnd_hi32() */
+__flag(BPF_F_TEST_RND_HI32)
+__success
+/* This test was added because of a bug in verifier.c:sync_linked_regs(),
+ * upon range propagation it destroyed subreg_def marks for registers.
+ * The subreg_def mark is used to decide whether zero extension instructions
+ * are needed when register is read. When BPF_F_TEST_RND_HI32 is set it
+ * also causes generation of statements to randomize upper halves of
+ * read registers.
+ *
+ * The test is written in a way to return an upper half of a register
+ * that is affected by range propagation and must have it's subreg_def
+ * preserved. This gives a return value of 0 and leads to undefined
+ * return value if subreg_def mark is not preserved.
+ */
+__retval(0)
+/* Check that verifier believes r1/r0 are zero at exit */
+__log_level(2)
+__msg("4: (77) r1 >>= 32                     ; R1_w=0")
+__msg("5: (bf) r0 = r1                       ; R0_w=0 R1_w=0")
+__msg("6: (95) exit")
+__msg("from 3 to 4")
+__msg("4: (77) r1 >>= 32                     ; R1_w=0")
+__msg("5: (bf) r0 = r1                       ; R0_w=0 R1_w=0")
+__msg("6: (95) exit")
+/* Verify that statements to randomize upper half of r1 had not been
+ * generated.
+ */
+__xlated("call unknown")
+__xlated("r0 &= 2147483647")
+__xlated("w1 = w0")
+/* This is how disasm.c prints BPF_ZEXT_REG at the moment, x86 and arm
+ * are the only CI archs that do not need zero extension for subregs.
+ */
+#if !defined(__TARGET_ARCH_x86) && !defined(__TARGET_ARCH_arm64)
+__xlated("w1 = w1")
+#endif
+__xlated("if w0 < 0xa goto pc+0")
+__xlated("r1 >>= 32")
+__xlated("r0 = r1")
+__xlated("exit")
+__naked void linked_regs_and_subreg_def(void)
+{
+	asm volatile (
+	"call %[bpf_ktime_get_ns];"
+	/* make sure r0 is in 32-bit range, otherwise w1 = w0 won't
+	 * assign same IDs to registers.
+	 */
+	"r0 &= 0x7fffffff;"
+	/* link w1 and w0 via ID */
+	"w1 = w0;"
+	/* 'if' statement propagates range info from w0 to w1,
+	 * but should not affect w1->subreg_def property.
+	 */
+	"if w0 < 10 goto +0;"
+	/* r1 is read here, on archs that require subreg zero
+	 * extension this would cause zext patch generation.
+	 */
+	"r1 >>= 32;"
+	"r0 = r1;"
+	"exit;"
+	:
+	: __imm(bpf_ktime_get_ns)
+	: __clobber_all);
+}
+
 char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
-- 
2.46.0