From: Kui-Feng Lee <sinquersw@gmail.com>
To: thinker.li@gmail.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org,
martin.lau@linux.dev, song@kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com,
andrii@kernel.org, davemarchevsky@meta.com, dvernet@meta.com
Cc: kuifeng@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 3/3] selftests/bpf: Test PTR_MAYBE_NULL arguments of struct_ops operators.
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2024 11:35:47 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <65569020-d712-492a-91ff-9ca3f268bfeb@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240206063833.2520479-4-thinker.li@gmail.com>
On 2/5/24 22:38, thinker.li@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Kui-Feng Lee <thinker.li@gmail.com>
>
> Test if the verifier verifies nullable pointer arguments correctly for BPF
> struct_ops programs.
>
> "test_maybe_null" in struct bpf_testmod_ops is the operator defined for the
> test cases here. It has several pointer arguments to various types. These
> pointers are majorly classified to 3 categories; pointers to struct types,
> pointers to scalar types, and pointers to array types. They are handled
> sightly differently.
>
> A BPF program should check a pointer for NULL beforehand to access the
> value pointed by the nullable pointer arguments, or the verifier should
> reject the programs. The test here includes two parts; the programs
> checking pointers properly and the programs not checking pointers
> beforehand. The test checks if the verifier accepts the programs checking
> properly and rejects the programs not checking at all.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kui-Feng Lee <thinker.li@gmail.com>
> ---
> .../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c | 12 ++++-
> .../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h | 7 +++
> .../prog_tests/test_struct_ops_maybe_null.c | 47 +++++++++++++++++++
> .../bpf/progs/struct_ops_maybe_null.c | 31 ++++++++++++
> .../bpf/progs/struct_ops_maybe_null_fail.c | 25 ++++++++++
> 5 files changed, 121 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_maybe_null.c
> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_maybe_null.c
> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_maybe_null_fail.c
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
> index a06daebc75c9..891a2b5f422c 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
> @@ -555,7 +555,10 @@ static int bpf_dummy_reg(void *kdata)
> {
> struct bpf_testmod_ops *ops = kdata;
>
> - ops->test_2(4, 3);
> + if (ops->test_maybe_null)
> + ops->test_maybe_null(0, NULL);
> + else
> + ops->test_2(4, 3);
>
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -573,9 +576,16 @@ static void bpf_testmod_test_2(int a, int b)
> {
> }
>
> +static int bpf_testmod_ops__test_maybe_null(int dummy,
> + struct task_struct *task__nullable)
> +{
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> static struct bpf_testmod_ops __bpf_testmod_ops = {
> .test_1 = bpf_testmod_test_1,
> .test_2 = bpf_testmod_test_2,
> + .test_maybe_null = bpf_testmod_ops__test_maybe_null,
> };
>
> struct bpf_struct_ops bpf_bpf_testmod_ops = {
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h
> index 537beca42896..c51580c9119d 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h
> @@ -5,6 +5,8 @@
>
> #include <linux/types.h>
>
> +struct task_struct;
> +
> struct bpf_testmod_test_read_ctx {
> char *buf;
> loff_t off;
> @@ -28,9 +30,14 @@ struct bpf_iter_testmod_seq {
> int cnt;
> };
>
> +typedef u32 (*ar_t)[2];
> +typedef u32 (*ar2_t)[];
> +
> struct bpf_testmod_ops {
> int (*test_1)(void);
> void (*test_2)(int a, int b);
> + /* Used to test nullable arguments. */
> + int (*test_maybe_null)(int dummy, struct task_struct *task);
> };
>
> #endif /* _BPF_TESTMOD_H */
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_maybe_null.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_maybe_null.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..1c057c62d893
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_struct_ops_maybe_null.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +/* Copyright (c) 2024 Meta Platforms, Inc. and affiliates. */
> +#include <test_progs.h>
> +#include <time.h>
> +
> +#include "struct_ops_maybe_null.skel.h"
> +#include "struct_ops_maybe_null_fail.skel.h"
> +
> +/* Test that the verifier accepts a program that access a nullable pointer
> + * with a proper check.
> + */
> +static void maybe_null(void)
> +{
> + struct struct_ops_maybe_null *skel;
> +
> + skel = struct_ops_maybe_null__open_and_load();
> + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "struct_ops_module_open_and_load"))
> + return;
> +
> + struct_ops_maybe_null__destroy(skel);
> +}
> +
> +/* Test that the verifier rejects a program that access a nullable pointer
> + * without a check beforehand.
> + */
> +static void maybe_null_fail(void)
> +{
> + struct struct_ops_maybe_null_fail *skel;
> +
> + skel = struct_ops_maybe_null_fail__open_and_load();
> + if (ASSERT_ERR_PTR(skel, "struct_ops_module_fail__open_and_load"))
> + return;
> +
> + struct_ops_maybe_null_fail__destroy(skel);
> +}
> +
> +void test_struct_ops_maybe_null(void)
> +{
> + /* The verifier verifies the programs at load time, so testing both
> + * programs in the same compile-unit is complicated. We run them in
> + * separate objects to simplify the testing.
> + */
> + if (test__start_subtest("maybe_null"))
> + maybe_null();
> + if (test__start_subtest("maybe_null_fail"))
> + maybe_null_fail();
> +}
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_maybe_null.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_maybe_null.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..c5769c742900
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_maybe_null.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +/* Copyright (c) 2024 Meta Platforms, Inc. and affiliates. */
> +#include <vmlinux.h>
> +#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
> +#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
> +#include "../bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h"
> +
> +char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
> +
> +u64 tgid = 0;
> +
> +/* This is a test BPF program that uses struct_ops to access an argument
> + * that may be NULL. This is a test for the verifier to ensure that it can
> + * rip PTR_MAYBE_NULL correctly. There are tree pointers; task, scalar, and
> + * ar. They are used to test the cases of PTR_TO_BTF_ID, PTR_TO_BUF, and array.
Just found I didn't remove this comment. I will remove the last two
sentences from the next version.
> + */
> +SEC("struct_ops/test_maybe_null")
> +int BPF_PROG(test_maybe_null, int dummy,
> + struct task_struct *task)
> +{
> + if (task)
> + tgid = task->tgid;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +SEC(".struct_ops.link")
> +struct bpf_testmod_ops testmod_1 = {
> + .test_maybe_null = (void *)test_maybe_null,
> +};
> +
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_maybe_null_fail.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_maybe_null_fail.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..566be47fb40b
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/struct_ops_maybe_null_fail.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +/* Copyright (c) 2024 Meta Platforms, Inc. and affiliates. */
> +#include <vmlinux.h>
> +#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
> +#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
> +#include "../bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.h"
> +
> +char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
> +
> +int tgid = 0;
> +
> +SEC("struct_ops/test_maybe_null_struct_ptr")
> +int BPF_PROG(test_maybe_null_struct_ptr, int dummy,
> + struct task_struct *task)
> +{
> + tgid = task->tgid;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +SEC(".struct_ops.link")
> +struct bpf_testmod_ops testmod_struct_ptr = {
> + .test_maybe_null = (void *)test_maybe_null_struct_ptr,
> +};
> +
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-07 19:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-06 6:38 [PATCH bpf-next v5 0/3] Support PTR_MAYBE_NULL for struct_ops arguments thinker.li
2024-02-06 6:38 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 1/3] bpf: add btf pointer to struct bpf_ctx_arg_aux thinker.li
2024-02-06 6:38 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 2/3] bpf: Create argument information for nullable arguments thinker.li
2024-02-07 20:45 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-02-07 23:57 ` Kui-Feng Lee
2024-02-06 6:38 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 3/3] selftests/bpf: Test PTR_MAYBE_NULL arguments of struct_ops operators thinker.li
2024-02-07 19:35 ` Kui-Feng Lee [this message]
2024-02-07 22:38 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2024-02-08 0:54 ` Kui-Feng Lee
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=65569020-d712-492a-91ff-9ca3f268bfeb@gmail.com \
--to=sinquersw@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=davemarchevsky@meta.com \
--cc=dvernet@meta.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=kuifeng@meta.com \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=thinker.li@gmail.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