From: Nandakumar Edamana <nandakumar@nandakumar.co.in>
To: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com>,
Harishankar Vishwanathan <harishankar.vishwanathan@gmail.com>,
Nandakumar Edamana <nandakumar@nandakumar.co.in>
Subject: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 2/2] bpf: add selftest to check the verifier's abstract multiplication
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2025 22:38:21 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250822170821.2053848-2-nandakumar@nandakumar.co.in> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250822170821.2053848-1-nandakumar@nandakumar.co.in>
This commit adds selftest to test the abstract multiplication
technique(s) used by the verifier, following the recent improvement in
tnum multiplication (tnum_mul). One of the newly added programs,
verifier_mul/mul_precise, results in a false positive with the old
tnum_mul, while the program passes with the latest one.
Signed-off-by: Nandakumar Edamana <nandakumar@nandakumar.co.in>
---
.../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c | 2 +
.../selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_mul.c | 75 +++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 77 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_mul.c
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c
index 77ec95d4ffaa..e35c216dbaf2 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c
@@ -59,6 +59,7 @@
#include "verifier_meta_access.skel.h"
#include "verifier_movsx.skel.h"
#include "verifier_mtu.skel.h"
+#include "verifier_mul.skel.h"
#include "verifier_netfilter_ctx.skel.h"
#include "verifier_netfilter_retcode.skel.h"
#include "verifier_bpf_fastcall.skel.h"
@@ -194,6 +195,7 @@ void test_verifier_may_goto_1(void) { RUN(verifier_may_goto_1); }
void test_verifier_may_goto_2(void) { RUN(verifier_may_goto_2); }
void test_verifier_meta_access(void) { RUN(verifier_meta_access); }
void test_verifier_movsx(void) { RUN(verifier_movsx); }
+void test_verifier_mul(void) { RUN(verifier_mul); }
void test_verifier_netfilter_ctx(void) { RUN(verifier_netfilter_ctx); }
void test_verifier_netfilter_retcode(void) { RUN(verifier_netfilter_retcode); }
void test_verifier_bpf_fastcall(void) { RUN(verifier_bpf_fastcall); }
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_mul.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_mul.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..e7ccf19c7461
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_mul.c
@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+/* Copyright (c) 2025 Nandakumar Edamana */
+#include <linux/bpf.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
+#include "bpf_misc.h"
+
+/* The programs here are meant to test the abstract multiplication
+ * technique(s) used by the verifier. Using assembly to prevent
+ * compiler optimizations.
+ */
+
+SEC("fentry/bpf_fentry_test1")
+void BPF_PROG(mul_0, int x)
+{
+ asm volatile ("\
+ call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];\
+ r0 *= 0;\
+ if r0 != 0 goto l0_%=;\
+ r0 = 0;\
+ goto l1_%=;\
+l0_%=:\
+ r0 = 1;\
+l1_%=:\
+" :
+ : __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32)
+ : __clobber_all);
+}
+
+SEC("fentry/bpf_fentry_test1")
+__failure __msg("At program exit the register R0 has smin=1 smax=1 should have been in [0, 0]")
+void BPF_PROG(mul_uncertain, int x)
+{
+ asm volatile ("\
+ call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];\
+ r0 *= 0x3;\
+ if r0 != 0 goto l0_%=;\
+ r0 = 0;\
+ goto l1_%=;\
+l0_%=:\
+ r0 = 1;\
+l1_%=:\
+" :
+ : __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32)
+ : __clobber_all);
+}
+
+SEC("fentry/bpf_fentry_test1")
+void BPF_PROG(mul_precise, int x)
+{
+ /* First, force the verifier to be uncertain about the value:
+ * unsigned int a = (bpf_get_prandom_u32() & 0x2) | 0x1;
+ *
+ * Assuming the verifier is using tnum, a must be tnum{.v=0x1, .m=0x2}.
+ * Then a * 0x3 would be m0m1 (m for uncertain). Added imprecision
+ * would cause the following to fail, because the required return value
+ * is 0:
+ * return (a * 0x3) & 0x4);
+ */
+ asm volatile ("\
+ call %[bpf_get_prandom_u32];\
+ r0 &= 0x2;\
+ r0 |= 0x1;\
+ r0 *= 0x3;\
+ r0 &= 0x4;\
+ if r0 != 0 goto l0_%=;\
+ r0 = 0;\
+ goto l1_%=;\
+l0_%=:\
+ r0 = 1;\
+l1_%=:\
+" :
+ : __imm(bpf_get_prandom_u32)
+ : __clobber_all);
+}
--
2.39.5
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-08-22 17:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-08-22 17:08 [PATCH v4 bpf-next 1/2] bpf: improve the general precision of tnum_mul Nandakumar Edamana
2025-08-22 17:08 ` Nandakumar Edamana [this message]
2025-08-22 18:59 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 2/2] bpf: add selftest to check the verifier's abstract multiplication Eduard Zingerman
2025-08-22 18:37 ` [PATCH v4 bpf-next 1/2] bpf: improve the general precision of tnum_mul Eduard Zingerman
2025-08-22 18:58 ` Nandakumar Edamana
2025-08-22 21:14 ` Harishankar Vishwanathan
2025-08-22 21:50 ` Eduard Zingerman
2025-08-22 23:48 ` Nandakumar Edamana
2025-08-22 23:56 ` Eduard Zingerman
2025-08-25 4:16 ` Nandakumar Edamana
2025-08-25 16:24 ` Eduard Zingerman
2025-08-25 16:56 ` Nandakumar Edamana
2025-08-25 16:57 ` Eduard Zingerman
2025-08-25 15:51 ` Eduard Zingerman
2025-08-22 23:50 ` Harishankar Vishwanathan
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=20250822170821.2053848-2-nandakumar@nandakumar.co.in \
--to=nandakumar@nandakumar.co.in \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=harishankar.vishwanathan@gmail.com \
--cc=jakub@cloudflare.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).