From: Anton Protopopov <a.s.protopopov@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Anton Protopopov <aspsk@isovalent.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
Quentin Monnet <qmo@kernel.org>,
Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Cc: Anton Protopopov <a.s.protopopov@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH v11 bpf-next 04/12] selftests/bpf: add selftests for new insn_array map
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2025 09:04:02 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20251105090410.1250500-5-a.s.protopopov@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251105090410.1250500-1-a.s.protopopov@gmail.com>
Add the following selftests for new insn_array map:
* Incorrect instruction indexes are rejected
* Two programs can't use the same map
* BPF progs can't operate the map
* no changes to code => map is the same
* expected changes when instructions are added
* expected changes when instructions are deleted
* expected changes when multiple functions are present
Signed-off-by: Anton Protopopov <a.s.protopopov@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
---
.../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_insn_array.c | 409 ++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 409 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_insn_array.c
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_insn_array.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_insn_array.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..96ee9c9984f1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_insn_array.c
@@ -0,0 +1,409 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+#include <bpf/bpf.h>
+#include <test_progs.h>
+
+#ifdef __x86_64__
+static int map_create(__u32 map_type, __u32 max_entries)
+{
+ const char *map_name = "insn_array";
+ __u32 key_size = 4;
+ __u32 value_size = sizeof(struct bpf_insn_array_value);
+
+ return bpf_map_create(map_type, map_name, key_size, value_size, max_entries, NULL);
+}
+
+static int prog_load(struct bpf_insn *insns, __u32 insn_cnt, int *fd_array, __u32 fd_array_cnt)
+{
+ LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_prog_load_opts, opts);
+
+ opts.fd_array = fd_array;
+ opts.fd_array_cnt = fd_array_cnt;
+
+ return bpf_prog_load(BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP, NULL, "GPL", insns, insn_cnt, &opts);
+}
+
+static void __check_success(struct bpf_insn *insns, __u32 insn_cnt, __u32 *map_in, __u32 *map_out)
+{
+ struct bpf_insn_array_value val = {};
+ int prog_fd = -1, map_fd, i;
+
+ map_fd = map_create(BPF_MAP_TYPE_INSN_ARRAY, insn_cnt);
+ if (!ASSERT_GE(map_fd, 0, "map_create"))
+ return;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < insn_cnt; i++) {
+ val.orig_off = map_in[i];
+ if (!ASSERT_EQ(bpf_map_update_elem(map_fd, &i, &val, 0), 0, "bpf_map_update_elem"))
+ goto cleanup;
+ }
+
+ if (!ASSERT_EQ(bpf_map_freeze(map_fd), 0, "bpf_map_freeze"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ prog_fd = prog_load(insns, insn_cnt, &map_fd, 1);
+ if (!ASSERT_GE(prog_fd, 0, "bpf(BPF_PROG_LOAD)"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < insn_cnt; i++) {
+ char buf[64];
+
+ if (!ASSERT_EQ(bpf_map_lookup_elem(map_fd, &i, &val), 0, "bpf_map_lookup_elem"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "val.xlated_off should be equal map_out[%d]", i);
+ ASSERT_EQ(val.xlated_off, map_out[i], buf);
+ }
+
+cleanup:
+ close(prog_fd);
+ close(map_fd);
+}
+
+/*
+ * Load a program, which will not be anyhow mangled by the verifier. Add an
+ * insn_array map pointing to every instruction. Check that it hasn't changed
+ * after the program load.
+ */
+static void check_one_to_one_mapping(void)
+{
+ struct bpf_insn insns[] = {
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 4),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 3),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 2),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ };
+ __u32 map_in[] = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
+ __u32 map_out[] = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
+
+ __check_success(insns, ARRAY_SIZE(insns), map_in, map_out);
+}
+
+/*
+ * Load a program with two patches (get jiffies, for simplicity). Add an
+ * insn_array map pointing to every instruction. Check how it was changed
+ * after the program load.
+ */
+static void check_simple(void)
+{
+ struct bpf_insn insns[] = {
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 2),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, BPF_FUNC_jiffies64),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, BPF_FUNC_jiffies64),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ };
+ __u32 map_in[] = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
+ __u32 map_out[] = {0, 1, 4, 5, 8, 9};
+
+ __check_success(insns, ARRAY_SIZE(insns), map_in, map_out);
+}
+
+/*
+ * Verifier can delete code in two cases: nops & dead code. From insn
+ * array's point of view, the two cases are the same, so test using
+ * the simplest method: by loading some nops
+ */
+static void check_deletions(void)
+{
+ struct bpf_insn insns[] = {
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 2),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, 0), /* nop */
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, 0), /* nop */
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ };
+ __u32 map_in[] = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
+ __u32 map_out[] = {0, -1, 1, -1, 2, 3};
+
+ __check_success(insns, ARRAY_SIZE(insns), map_in, map_out);
+}
+
+/*
+ * Same test as check_deletions, but also add code which adds instructions
+ */
+static void check_deletions_with_functions(void)
+{
+ struct bpf_insn insns[] = {
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, 0), /* nop */
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, BPF_FUNC_jiffies64),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, 0), /* nop */
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 1, 0, 2),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, 0), /* nop */
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, BPF_FUNC_jiffies64),
+ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JA, 0, 0, 0), /* nop */
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 2),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ };
+ __u32 map_in[] = { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, /* func */ 6, 7, 8, 9, 10};
+ __u32 map_out[] = {-1, 0, -1, 3, 4, 5, /* func */ -1, 6, -1, 9, 10};
+
+ __check_success(insns, ARRAY_SIZE(insns), map_in, map_out);
+}
+
+/*
+ * Try to load a program with a map which points to outside of the program
+ */
+static void check_out_of_bounds_index(void)
+{
+ struct bpf_insn insns[] = {
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 4),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 3),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 2),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ };
+ int prog_fd, map_fd;
+ struct bpf_insn_array_value val = {};
+ int key;
+
+ map_fd = map_create(BPF_MAP_TYPE_INSN_ARRAY, 1);
+ if (!ASSERT_GE(map_fd, 0, "map_create"))
+ return;
+
+ key = 0;
+ val.orig_off = ARRAY_SIZE(insns); /* too big */
+ if (!ASSERT_EQ(bpf_map_update_elem(map_fd, &key, &val, 0), 0, "bpf_map_update_elem"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ if (!ASSERT_EQ(bpf_map_freeze(map_fd), 0, "bpf_map_freeze"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ prog_fd = prog_load(insns, ARRAY_SIZE(insns), &map_fd, 1);
+ if (!ASSERT_EQ(prog_fd, -EINVAL, "program should have been rejected (prog_fd != -EINVAL)")) {
+ close(prog_fd);
+ goto cleanup;
+ }
+
+cleanup:
+ close(map_fd);
+}
+
+/*
+ * Try to load a program with a map which points to the middle of 16-bit insn
+ */
+static void check_mid_insn_index(void)
+{
+ struct bpf_insn insns[] = {
+ BPF_LD_IMM64(BPF_REG_0, 0), /* 2 x 8 */
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ };
+ int prog_fd, map_fd;
+ struct bpf_insn_array_value val = {};
+ int key;
+
+ map_fd = map_create(BPF_MAP_TYPE_INSN_ARRAY, 1);
+ if (!ASSERT_GE(map_fd, 0, "map_create"))
+ return;
+
+ key = 0;
+ val.orig_off = 1; /* middle of 16-byte instruction */
+ if (!ASSERT_EQ(bpf_map_update_elem(map_fd, &key, &val, 0), 0, "bpf_map_update_elem"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ if (!ASSERT_EQ(bpf_map_freeze(map_fd), 0, "bpf_map_freeze"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ prog_fd = prog_load(insns, ARRAY_SIZE(insns), &map_fd, 1);
+ if (!ASSERT_EQ(prog_fd, -EINVAL, "program should have been rejected (prog_fd != -EINVAL)")) {
+ close(prog_fd);
+ goto cleanup;
+ }
+
+cleanup:
+ close(map_fd);
+}
+
+static void check_incorrect_index(void)
+{
+ check_out_of_bounds_index();
+ check_mid_insn_index();
+}
+
+/* Once map was initialized, it should be frozen */
+static void check_load_unfrozen_map(void)
+{
+ struct bpf_insn insns[] = {
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ };
+ int prog_fd = -1, map_fd;
+ struct bpf_insn_array_value val = {};
+ int i;
+
+ map_fd = map_create(BPF_MAP_TYPE_INSN_ARRAY, ARRAY_SIZE(insns));
+ if (!ASSERT_GE(map_fd, 0, "map_create"))
+ return;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(insns); i++) {
+ val.orig_off = i;
+ if (!ASSERT_EQ(bpf_map_update_elem(map_fd, &i, &val, 0), 0, "bpf_map_update_elem"))
+ goto cleanup;
+ }
+
+ prog_fd = prog_load(insns, ARRAY_SIZE(insns), &map_fd, 1);
+ if (!ASSERT_EQ(prog_fd, -EINVAL, "program should have been rejected (prog_fd != -EINVAL)"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ /* correctness: now freeze the map, the program should load fine */
+
+ if (!ASSERT_EQ(bpf_map_freeze(map_fd), 0, "bpf_map_freeze"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ prog_fd = prog_load(insns, ARRAY_SIZE(insns), &map_fd, 1);
+ if (!ASSERT_GE(prog_fd, 0, "bpf(BPF_PROG_LOAD)"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(insns); i++) {
+ if (!ASSERT_EQ(bpf_map_lookup_elem(map_fd, &i, &val), 0, "bpf_map_lookup_elem"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ ASSERT_EQ(val.xlated_off, i, "val should be equal i");
+ }
+
+cleanup:
+ close(prog_fd);
+ close(map_fd);
+}
+
+/* Map can be used only by one BPF program */
+static void check_no_map_reuse(void)
+{
+ struct bpf_insn insns[] = {
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ };
+ int prog_fd = -1, map_fd, extra_fd = -1;
+ struct bpf_insn_array_value val = {};
+ int i;
+
+ map_fd = map_create(BPF_MAP_TYPE_INSN_ARRAY, ARRAY_SIZE(insns));
+ if (!ASSERT_GE(map_fd, 0, "map_create"))
+ return;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(insns); i++) {
+ val.orig_off = i;
+ if (!ASSERT_EQ(bpf_map_update_elem(map_fd, &i, &val, 0), 0, "bpf_map_update_elem"))
+ goto cleanup;
+ }
+
+ if (!ASSERT_EQ(bpf_map_freeze(map_fd), 0, "bpf_map_freeze"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ prog_fd = prog_load(insns, ARRAY_SIZE(insns), &map_fd, 1);
+ if (!ASSERT_GE(prog_fd, 0, "bpf(BPF_PROG_LOAD)"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(insns); i++) {
+ if (!ASSERT_EQ(bpf_map_lookup_elem(map_fd, &i, &val), 0, "bpf_map_lookup_elem"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ ASSERT_EQ(val.xlated_off, i, "val should be equal i");
+ }
+
+ extra_fd = prog_load(insns, ARRAY_SIZE(insns), &map_fd, 1);
+ if (!ASSERT_EQ(extra_fd, -EBUSY, "program should have been rejected (extra_fd != -EBUSY)"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ /* correctness: check that prog is still loadable without fd_array */
+ extra_fd = prog_load(insns, ARRAY_SIZE(insns), NULL, 0);
+ if (!ASSERT_GE(prog_fd, 0, "bpf(BPF_PROG_LOAD): expected no error"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+cleanup:
+ close(extra_fd);
+ close(prog_fd);
+ close(map_fd);
+}
+
+static void check_bpf_no_lookup(void)
+{
+ struct bpf_insn insns[] = {
+ BPF_LD_MAP_FD(BPF_REG_1, 0),
+ BPF_ST_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, -8, 0),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_10),
+ BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_2, -8),
+ BPF_RAW_INSN(BPF_JMP | BPF_CALL, 0, 0, 0, BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ };
+ int prog_fd = -1, map_fd;
+
+ map_fd = map_create(BPF_MAP_TYPE_INSN_ARRAY, 1);
+ if (!ASSERT_GE(map_fd, 0, "map_create"))
+ return;
+
+ insns[0].imm = map_fd;
+
+ if (!ASSERT_EQ(bpf_map_freeze(map_fd), 0, "bpf_map_freeze"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ prog_fd = prog_load(insns, ARRAY_SIZE(insns), NULL, 0);
+ if (!ASSERT_EQ(prog_fd, -EINVAL, "program should have been rejected (prog_fd != -EINVAL)"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ /* correctness: check that prog is still loadable with normal map */
+ close(map_fd);
+ map_fd = map_create(BPF_MAP_TYPE_ARRAY, 1);
+ insns[0].imm = map_fd;
+ prog_fd = prog_load(insns, ARRAY_SIZE(insns), NULL, 0);
+ if (!ASSERT_GE(prog_fd, 0, "bpf(BPF_PROG_LOAD)"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+cleanup:
+ close(prog_fd);
+ close(map_fd);
+}
+
+static void check_bpf_side(void)
+{
+ check_bpf_no_lookup();
+}
+
+static void __test_bpf_insn_array(void)
+{
+ /* Test if offsets are adjusted properly */
+
+ if (test__start_subtest("one2one"))
+ check_one_to_one_mapping();
+
+ if (test__start_subtest("simple"))
+ check_simple();
+
+ if (test__start_subtest("deletions"))
+ check_deletions();
+
+ if (test__start_subtest("deletions-with-functions"))
+ check_deletions_with_functions();
+
+ /* Check all kinds of operations and related restrictions */
+
+ if (test__start_subtest("incorrect-index"))
+ check_incorrect_index();
+
+ if (test__start_subtest("load-unfrozen-map"))
+ check_load_unfrozen_map();
+
+ if (test__start_subtest("no-map-reuse"))
+ check_no_map_reuse();
+
+ if (test__start_subtest("bpf-side-ops"))
+ check_bpf_side();
+}
+#else
+static void __test_bpf_insn_array(void)
+{
+ test__skip();
+}
+#endif
+
+void test_bpf_insn_array(void)
+{
+ __test_bpf_insn_array();
+}
--
2.34.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-11-05 8:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-11-05 9:03 [PATCH v11 bpf-next 00/12] BPF indirect jumps Anton Protopopov
2025-11-05 9:03 ` [PATCH v11 bpf-next 01/12] bpf, x86: add new map type: instructions array Anton Protopopov
2025-11-06 2:03 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2025-11-06 10:01 ` Anton Protopopov
2025-11-06 17:08 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2025-11-16 12:58 ` Anton Protopopov
2025-11-22 2:40 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2025-11-24 15:17 ` Anton Protopopov
2025-11-05 9:04 ` [PATCH v11 bpf-next 02/12] bpftool: Recognize insn_array map type Anton Protopopov
2025-11-05 9:21 ` bot+bpf-ci
2025-11-05 9:29 ` Anton Protopopov
2025-11-05 9:04 ` [PATCH v11 bpf-next 03/12] libbpf: " Anton Protopopov
2025-11-05 9:04 ` Anton Protopopov [this message]
2025-11-05 9:28 ` [PATCH v11 bpf-next 04/12] selftests/bpf: add selftests for new insn_array map bot+bpf-ci
2025-11-05 9:52 ` Anton Protopopov
2025-11-05 9:04 ` [PATCH v11 bpf-next 05/12] bpf: support instructions arrays with constants blinding Anton Protopopov
2025-11-05 9:04 ` [PATCH v11 bpf-next 06/12] selftests/bpf: test instructions arrays with blinding Anton Protopopov
2025-11-05 9:04 ` [PATCH v11 bpf-next 07/12] bpf, x86: allow indirect jumps to r8...r15 Anton Protopopov
2025-11-05 9:04 ` [PATCH v11 bpf-next 08/12] bpf, x86: add support for indirect jumps Anton Protopopov
2025-11-05 11:23 ` Anton Protopopov
2025-11-05 17:45 ` Ihor Solodrai
2025-11-05 20:16 ` Anton Protopopov
2025-11-05 22:42 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2025-11-06 10:03 ` Anton Protopopov
2025-11-05 9:04 ` [PATCH v11 bpf-next 09/12] bpf: disasm: add support for BPF_JMP|BPF_JA|BPF_X Anton Protopopov
2025-11-05 9:04 ` [PATCH v11 bpf-next 10/12] libbpf: support llvm-generated indirect jumps Anton Protopopov
2025-11-05 9:04 ` [PATCH v11 bpf-next 11/12] selftests/bpf: add new verifier_gotox test Anton Protopopov
2025-11-05 9:04 ` [PATCH v11 bpf-next 12/12] selftests/bpf: add C-level selftests for indirect jumps Anton Protopopov
2025-11-05 9:28 ` bot+bpf-ci
2025-11-05 9:37 ` Anton Protopopov
2025-11-05 20:51 ` [PATCH v11 bpf-next 00/12] BPF " Eduard Zingerman
2025-11-05 21:54 ` Anton Protopopov
2025-11-06 1:56 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2025-11-06 2:00 ` 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=20251105090410.1250500-5-a.s.protopopov@gmail.com \
--to=a.s.protopopov@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=aspsk@isovalent.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=qmo@kernel.org \
--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