From: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@kernel.org>
To: Sun Jian <sun.jian.kdev@gmail.com>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Cc: ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org,
eddyz87@gmail.com, paul.chaignon@gmail.com, shuah@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sun Jian <sun.jian.kdev@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/bpf: add a 32-bit bounds deduction case
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2026 12:36:30 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m2fr5xnwkx.fsf@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260318113200.303824-1-sun.jian.kdev@gmail.com>
Sun Jian <sun.jian.kdev@gmail.com> writes:
> verifier_bounds.c already has 64-bit cross-sign-boundary bounds
> deduction coverage.
>
> Recent 32-bit signed/unsigned intersection tests extended the refinement
> coverage, but a corresponding negative case is still missing.
>
> Add a 32-bit selftest for that case and assert that the program is
> rejected, confirming that verifier remains conservative there.
The "recent 32-bit signed/unsigned intersection tests" are Eduard's
signed_unsigned_intersection32_case1/case2 (commit f81fdfd16771), which
cover the two refinement branches added to deduce_bounds_32_from_32() in
commit fbc7aef517d8.
Your test claims to be a "negative case" for the two-overlap scenario
where the verifier can't refine bounds. But tracing through the code,
that's not what happens. After the two w0 conditionals you have
u32=[0x80, 0xffffff80] and s32=[-128, 127]. In
deduce_bounds_32_from_32():
- (u32)s32_min_value <= (u32)s32_max_value (0xffffff80 <= 0x7f) is false,
so we enter the else branch
- u32_max < (u32)s32_min (0xffffff80 < 0xffffff80) is false, skip
- (u32)s32_max < u32_min (0x7f < 0x80) is true - the single-overlap else
if fires, successfully narrowing the register to the constant 0xffffff80
So this isn't a "two overlaps / no refinement" case at all. The verifier
resolves the value completely. This is the same else if branch that
signed_unsigned_intersection32_case1 already exercises (with u32=[3,
U32_MAX], s32=[S32_MIN, 1], where (u32)1 < 3 fires the same path).
No new coverage is added.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-18 12:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-18 11:32 [PATCH] selftests/bpf: add a 32-bit bounds deduction case Sun Jian
2026-03-18 12:36 ` Puranjay Mohan [this message]
2026-03-19 7:10 ` sun jian
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=m2fr5xnwkx.fsf@kernel.org \
--to=puranjay@kernel.org \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul.chaignon@gmail.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=sun.jian.kdev@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