[PATCH v2 bpf-next] selftests/bpf: Use _REGION1_SIZE in test_snprintf_btf on s390

[PATCH v2 bpf-next] selftests/bpf: Use _REGION1_SIZE in test_snprintf_btf on s390

[Ilya Leoshkevich]

test_snprintf_btf fails on s390, because NULL points to a readable
struct lowcore there. Fix by using _REGION1_SIZE instead.

Error message example:

    printing 0000000000000000 should generate error, got (361)

Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
---

v1: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210226135923.114211-1-iii@linux.ibm.com/
v1 -> v2: Yonghong suggested to add the pointer value to the error
          message.
          I've noticed that I've been passing BADPTR as flags, therefore
          the fix worked only by accident. Put it into p.ptr where it
          belongs.

 .../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/netif_receive_skb.c | 13 ++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/netif_receive_skb.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/netif_receive_skb.c
index 6b670039ea67..4d158de73c2d 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/netif_receive_skb.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/netif_receive_skb.c
@@ -16,6 +16,13 @@ bool skip = false;
 #define STRSIZE			2048
 #define EXPECTED_STRSIZE	256
 
+#if defined(bpf_target_s390)
+/* NULL points to a readable struct lowcore on s390, so take _REGION1_SIZE */
+#define BADPTR			((void *)(1ULL << 53))
+#else
+#define BADPTR			0
+#endif
+
 #ifndef ARRAY_SIZE
 #define ARRAY_SIZE(x)	(sizeof(x) / sizeof((x)[0]))
 #endif
@@ -113,11 +120,11 @@ int BPF_PROG(trace_netif_receive_skb, struct sk_buff *skb)
 	}
 
 	/* Check invalid ptr value */
-	p.ptr = 0;
+	p.ptr = BADPTR;
 	__ret = bpf_snprintf_btf(str, STRSIZE, &p, sizeof(p), 0);
 	if (__ret >= 0) {
-		bpf_printk("printing NULL should generate error, got (%d)",
-			   __ret);
+		bpf_printk("printing %p should generate error, got (%d)",
+			   BADPTR, __ret);
 		ret = -ERANGE;
 	}
 
-- 
2.29.2

Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next] selftests/bpf: Use _REGION1_SIZE in test_snprintf_btf on s390

[Heiko Carstens]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 07:20:14PM +0100, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> test_snprintf_btf fails on s390, because NULL points to a readable
> struct lowcore there. Fix by using _REGION1_SIZE instead.
> 
> Error message example:
> 
>     printing 0000000000000000 should generate error, got (361)
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
> 
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210226135923.114211-1-iii@linux.ibm.com/
> v1 -> v2: Yonghong suggested to add the pointer value to the error
>           message.
>           I've noticed that I've been passing BADPTR as flags, therefore
>           the fix worked only by accident. Put it into p.ptr where it
>           belongs.
> 
>  .../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/netif_receive_skb.c | 13 ++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/netif_receive_skb.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/netif_receive_skb.c
> index 6b670039ea67..4d158de73c2d 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/netif_receive_skb.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/netif_receive_skb.c
> @@ -16,6 +16,13 @@ bool skip = false;
>  #define STRSIZE			2048
>  #define EXPECTED_STRSIZE	256
> 
> +#if defined(bpf_target_s390)
> +/* NULL points to a readable struct lowcore on s390, so take _REGION1_SIZE */
> +#define BADPTR			((void *)(1ULL << 53))
> +#else
> +#define BADPTR			0
> +#endif
> +
>  #ifndef ARRAY_SIZE
>  #define ARRAY_SIZE(x)	(sizeof(x) / sizeof((x)[0]))
>  #endif
> @@ -113,11 +120,11 @@ int BPF_PROG(trace_netif_receive_skb, struct sk_buff *skb)
>  	}
> 
>  	/* Check invalid ptr value */
> -	p.ptr = 0;
> +	p.ptr = BADPTR;
>  	__ret = bpf_snprintf_btf(str, STRSIZE, &p, sizeof(p), 0);
>  	if (__ret >= 0) {
> -		bpf_printk("printing NULL should generate error, got (%d)",
> -			   __ret);
> +		bpf_printk("printing %p should generate error, got (%d)",
> +			   BADPTR, __ret);
>  		ret = -ERANGE;

This will work for now on s390, since _right now_ we don't map
anything that high, but there is no guarantee that it will stay
this way.
I'd rather skip this test for s390.