* [PATCH v4 15/24] bpf/validate: fix BPF_JGT/EBPF_JSGT no-jump max
From: Marat Khalili @ 2026-06-23 14:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Konstantin Ananyev; +Cc: dev, stable, Claudia Cauli
In-Reply-To: <20260623143215.95318-1-marat.khalili@huawei.com>
Functions `eval_jgt_jle` and `eval_jsgt_jsle` reduced range maximum for
BPF_JGT and EBPF_JSGT instructions in the no-jump case to the minimum of
src register instead of the maximum, producing more conservative
estimate that could cause false positives.
E.g. consider the following program with the current validation code:
Tested program:
0: mov r0, #0x0
1: ldxdw r2, [r1 + 0]
2: jlt r2, #0x14, L15
3: jgt r2, #0x3c, L15
4: jslt r2, #0x14, L15
5: jsgt r2, #0x3c, L15
6: ldxdw r3, [r1 + 8]
7: jlt r3, #0x1e, L15
8: jgt r3, #0x32, L15
9: jslt r3, #0x1e, L15
10: jsgt r3, #0x32, L15
11: jgt r2, r3, L14 ; tested instruction
12: mov r0, #0x1
13: exit
14: mov r0, #0x2
15: exit
Pre-state:
r2: 20..60
r3: 30..50
Post-state:
r2: 20..60 INTERSECT 0x14..0x1e (!)
Immediately after the tested instruction on step 12 validator expects r2
to contain values up to 60, for example 55, however for this value jump
condition r2 > r3 on step 11 would be always satisfied since r3 is known
to not exceed 50, and thus execution will always jump to step 14 instead
of continuing to step 12.
Fix range calculation, add tests for cases where range of src register
values is a strict subset of dst. Other cases will be covered in the
subsequent commits.
Fixes: 8021917293d0 ("bpf: add extra validation for input BPF program")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org
Reported-by: Claudia Cauli <claudiacauli@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Marat Khalili <marat.khalili@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com>
---
app/test/test_bpf_validate.c | 90 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c | 4 +-
2 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/app/test/test_bpf_validate.c b/app/test/test_bpf_validate.c
index 15cdc83f4f14..acc238f7d324 100644
--- a/app/test/test_bpf_validate.c
+++ b/app/test/test_bpf_validate.c
@@ -1485,6 +1485,96 @@ test_jmp64_jslt_x(void)
REGISTER_FAST_TEST(bpf_validate_jmp64_jslt_x_autotest, NOHUGE_OK, ASAN_OK,
test_jmp64_jslt_x);
+/* Jump on ordering relationship with narrower range. */
+static int
+test_jmp64_jxx_x_ordering_narrower(void)
+{
+ TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(verify_instruction((struct verify_instruction_param){
+ .tested_instruction = {
+ .code = (BPF_JMP | BPF_JGT | BPF_X),
+ },
+ .pre.dst = make_signed_domain(20, 60),
+ .pre.src = make_signed_domain(30, 50),
+ .post.dst = make_signed_domain(20, 50),
+ .jump.dst = make_signed_domain(31, 60),
+ }), "(BPF_JMP | BPF_JGT | BPF_X) check");
+
+ TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(verify_instruction((struct verify_instruction_param){
+ .tested_instruction = {
+ .code = (BPF_JMP | BPF_JGE | BPF_X),
+ },
+ .pre.dst = make_signed_domain(20, 60),
+ .pre.src = make_signed_domain(30, 50),
+ .post.dst = make_signed_domain(20, 49),
+ .jump.dst = make_signed_domain(30, 60),
+ }), "(BPF_JMP | BPF_JGE | BPF_X) check");
+
+ TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(verify_instruction((struct verify_instruction_param){
+ .tested_instruction = {
+ .code = (BPF_JMP | EBPF_JLT | BPF_X),
+ },
+ .pre.dst = make_signed_domain(20, 60),
+ .pre.src = make_signed_domain(30, 50),
+ .post.dst = make_signed_domain(30, 60),
+ .jump.dst = make_signed_domain(20, 49),
+ }), "(BPF_JMP | EBPF_JLT | BPF_X) check");
+
+ TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(verify_instruction((struct verify_instruction_param){
+ .tested_instruction = {
+ .code = (BPF_JMP | EBPF_JLE | BPF_X),
+ },
+ .pre.dst = make_signed_domain(20, 60),
+ .pre.src = make_signed_domain(30, 50),
+ .post.dst = make_signed_domain(31, 60),
+ .jump.dst = make_signed_domain(20, 50),
+ }), "(BPF_JMP | EBPF_JLE | BPF_X) check");
+
+ TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(verify_instruction((struct verify_instruction_param){
+ .tested_instruction = {
+ .code = (BPF_JMP | EBPF_JSGT | BPF_X),
+ },
+ .pre.dst = make_signed_domain(20, 60),
+ .pre.src = make_signed_domain(30, 50),
+ .post.dst = make_signed_domain(20, 50),
+ .jump.dst = make_signed_domain(31, 60),
+ }), "(BPF_JMP | EBPF_JSGT | BPF_X) check");
+
+ TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(verify_instruction((struct verify_instruction_param){
+ .tested_instruction = {
+ .code = (BPF_JMP | EBPF_JSGE | BPF_X),
+ },
+ .pre.dst = make_signed_domain(20, 60),
+ .pre.src = make_signed_domain(30, 50),
+ .post.dst = make_signed_domain(20, 49),
+ .jump.dst = make_signed_domain(30, 60),
+ }), "(BPF_JMP | EBPF_JSGE | BPF_X) check");
+
+ TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(verify_instruction((struct verify_instruction_param){
+ .tested_instruction = {
+ .code = (BPF_JMP | EBPF_JSLT | BPF_X),
+ },
+ .pre.dst = make_signed_domain(20, 60),
+ .pre.src = make_signed_domain(30, 50),
+ .post.dst = make_signed_domain(30, 60),
+ .jump.dst = make_signed_domain(20, 49),
+ }), "(BPF_JMP | EBPF_JSLT | BPF_X) check");
+
+ TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(verify_instruction((struct verify_instruction_param){
+ .tested_instruction = {
+ .code = (BPF_JMP | EBPF_JSLE | BPF_X),
+ },
+ .pre.dst = make_signed_domain(20, 60),
+ .pre.src = make_signed_domain(30, 50),
+ .post.dst = make_signed_domain(31, 60),
+ .jump.dst = make_signed_domain(20, 50),
+ }), "(BPF_JMP | EBPF_JSLE | BPF_X) check");
+
+ return TEST_SUCCESS;
+}
+
+REGISTER_FAST_TEST(bpf_validate_jmp64_jxx_x_ordering_narrower_autotest, NOHUGE_OK, ASAN_OK,
+ test_jmp64_jxx_x_ordering_narrower);
+
/* 64-bit load from heap (should be set to unknown). */
static int
test_mem_ldx_dw_heap(void)
diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c b/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
index 2b73e3628881..0578029dccbb 100644
--- a/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
+++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
@@ -1521,7 +1521,7 @@ static void
eval_jgt_jle(struct bpf_reg_val *trd, struct bpf_reg_val *trs,
struct bpf_reg_val *frd, struct bpf_reg_val *frs)
{
- frd->u.max = RTE_MIN(frd->u.max, frs->u.min);
+ frd->u.max = RTE_MIN(frd->u.max, frs->u.max);
trd->u.min = RTE_MAX(trd->u.min, trs->u.min + 1);
}
@@ -1537,7 +1537,7 @@ static void
eval_jsgt_jsle(struct bpf_reg_val *trd, struct bpf_reg_val *trs,
struct bpf_reg_val *frd, struct bpf_reg_val *frs)
{
- frd->s.max = RTE_MIN(frd->s.max, frs->s.min);
+ frd->s.max = RTE_MIN(frd->s.max, frs->s.max);
trd->s.min = RTE_MAX(trd->s.min, trs->s.min + 1);
}
--
2.43.0
^ permalink raw reply related
* [PATCH v4 14/24] bpf/validate: fix BPF_MUL signed overflow UB
From: Marat Khalili @ 2026-06-23 14:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Konstantin Ananyev; +Cc: dev, stable, Claudia Cauli
In-Reply-To: <20260623143215.95318-1-marat.khalili@huawei.com>
Function `eval_mul` triggered signed overflow for large constants.
E.g. consider the following program with the current validation code:
Tested program:
0: mov r0, #0x0
1: lddw r2, #0x9876543210
3: mul r2, #0x12345678 ; tested instruction
4: mov r0, #0x1
5: exit
With sanitizer the following diagnostic is generated:
lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c:1032:26: runtime error: signed integer
overflow: 654820258320 * 305419896 cannot be represented in type
'long int'
#0 0x000002746bfd in eval_mul lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c:1032
#1 0x00000274b6ac in eval_alu lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c:1260
#2 0x00000275c526 in evaluate lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c:3174
...
SUMMARY: UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer: undefined-behavior
lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c:1032:26
Multiply constants as unsigned which will produce mathematically correct
result in two's complement representation, add test.
Fixes: 8021917293d0 ("bpf: add extra validation for input BPF program")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org
Reported-by: Claudia Cauli <claudiacauli@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Marat Khalili <marat.khalili@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com>
---
app/test/test_bpf_validate.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c | 4 ++--
2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/app/test/test_bpf_validate.c b/app/test/test_bpf_validate.c
index ecebfd48dd52..15cdc83f4f14 100644
--- a/app/test/test_bpf_validate.c
+++ b/app/test/test_bpf_validate.c
@@ -1289,6 +1289,23 @@ test_alu64_div_mod_overflow(void)
REGISTER_FAST_TEST(bpf_validate_alu64_div_mod_overflow_autotest, NOHUGE_OK, ASAN_OK,
test_alu64_div_mod_overflow);
+/* 64-bit multiplication of constant and immediate with overflow. */
+static int
+test_alu64_mul_k_overflow(void)
+{
+ return verify_instruction((struct verify_instruction_param){
+ .tested_instruction = {
+ .code = (EBPF_ALU64 | BPF_MUL | BPF_K),
+ .imm = 0x12345678,
+ },
+ .pre.dst = make_singleton_domain(0x9876543210),
+ .post.dst = make_singleton_domain(0x9876543210u * 0x12345678),
+ });
+}
+
+REGISTER_FAST_TEST(bpf_validate_alu64_mul_k_overflow_autotest, NOHUGE_OK, ASAN_OK,
+ test_alu64_mul_k_overflow);
+
/* 64-bit mul of small scalar range and immediate. */
static int
test_alu64_mul_k_range_small(void)
diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c b/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
index 08717671a863..2b73e3628881 100644
--- a/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
+++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
@@ -921,8 +921,8 @@ eval_mul(struct bpf_reg_val *rd, const struct bpf_reg_val *rs, size_t opsz,
/* both operands are constants */
if (rd->s.min == rd->s.max && rs->s.min == rs->s.max) {
- rd->s.min = (rd->s.min * rs->s.min) & msk;
- rd->s.max = (rd->s.max * rs->s.max) & msk;
+ rd->s.min = ((uint64_t)rd->s.min * (uint64_t)rs->s.min) & msk;
+ rd->s.max = ((uint64_t)rd->s.max * (uint64_t)rs->s.max) & msk;
/* check that both operands are positive and no overflow */
} else if (rd->s.min >= 0 && rs->s.min >= 0) {
rd->s.max *= rs->s.max;
--
2.43.0
^ permalink raw reply related
* [PATCH v4 13/24] bpf/validate: fix BPF_MUL ranges minimum typo
From: Marat Khalili @ 2026-06-23 14:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Konstantin Ananyev; +Cc: dev, stable, Claudia Cauli
In-Reply-To: <20260623143215.95318-1-marat.khalili@huawei.com>
Function `eval_mul` calculated minimum of the both signed and unsigned
ranges as destination square instead of product with source due to a
typo.
E.g. consider the following program with the current validation code:
Tested program:
0: mov r0, #0x0
1: ldxdw r2, [r1 + 0]
2: jlt r2, #0x11, L8
3: jgt r2, #0x1d, L8
4: jslt r2, #0x11, L8
5: jsgt r2, #0x1d, L8
6: mul r2, #0xb ; tested instruction
7: mov r0, #0x1
8: exit
Pre-state:
r2: 17..29
Post-state:
r2: 289..319
After the tested instruction validator considers r2 to be no less than
289, however if 20 was loaded on step 1 it is possible for it after
multiplying by 11 to become 220 which is less than 289.
Fix the typo, add test.
Fixes: 8021917293d0 ("bpf: add extra validation for input BPF program")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org
Reported-by: Claudia Cauli <claudiacauli@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Marat Khalili <marat.khalili@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com>
---
app/test/test_bpf_validate.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c | 4 ++--
2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/app/test/test_bpf_validate.c b/app/test/test_bpf_validate.c
index 31a235a55af6..ecebfd48dd52 100644
--- a/app/test/test_bpf_validate.c
+++ b/app/test/test_bpf_validate.c
@@ -1289,6 +1289,23 @@ test_alu64_div_mod_overflow(void)
REGISTER_FAST_TEST(bpf_validate_alu64_div_mod_overflow_autotest, NOHUGE_OK, ASAN_OK,
test_alu64_div_mod_overflow);
+/* 64-bit mul of small scalar range and immediate. */
+static int
+test_alu64_mul_k_range_small(void)
+{
+ return verify_instruction((struct verify_instruction_param){
+ .tested_instruction = {
+ .code = (EBPF_ALU64 | BPF_MUL | BPF_K),
+ .imm = 11,
+ },
+ .pre.dst = make_unsigned_domain(17, 29),
+ .post.dst = make_unsigned_domain(17 * 11, 29 * 11),
+ });
+}
+
+REGISTER_FAST_TEST(bpf_validate_alu64_mul_k_range_small_autotest, NOHUGE_OK, ASAN_OK,
+ test_alu64_mul_k_range_small);
+
/* 64-bit negation when interval first element is INT64_MIN. */
static int
test_alu64_neg_int64min_first(void)
diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c b/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
index 14a186b7cbf7..08717671a863 100644
--- a/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
+++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
@@ -915,7 +915,7 @@ eval_mul(struct bpf_reg_val *rd, const struct bpf_reg_val *rs, size_t opsz,
/* check for overflow */
} else if (rd->u.max <= msk >> opsz / 2 && rs->u.max <= msk >> opsz) {
rd->u.max *= rs->u.max;
- rd->u.min *= rd->u.min;
+ rd->u.min *= rs->u.min;
} else
eval_umax_bound(rd, msk);
@@ -926,7 +926,7 @@ eval_mul(struct bpf_reg_val *rd, const struct bpf_reg_val *rs, size_t opsz,
/* check that both operands are positive and no overflow */
} else if (rd->s.min >= 0 && rs->s.min >= 0) {
rd->s.max *= rs->s.max;
- rd->s.min *= rd->s.min;
+ rd->s.min *= rs->s.min;
} else
eval_smax_bound(rd, msk);
}
--
2.43.0
^ permalink raw reply related
* [PATCH v4 12/24] bpf/validate: fix BPF_DIV and BPF_MOD signed part
From: Marat Khalili @ 2026-06-23 14:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Konstantin Ananyev; +Cc: dev, stable, Claudia Cauli
In-Reply-To: <20260623143215.95318-1-marat.khalili@huawei.com>
Function `eval_divmod` for _unsigned_ division or modulo operation
calculated signed ranges using _signed_ division, which is
mathematically incorrect: unlike some other mathematical operations,
signed and unsigned divisions in the CPU register cyclic ring math are
not equivalent.
E.g. consider the following program with the current validation code:
Tested program:
0: mov r0, #0x0
1: lddw r2, #0xaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
3: mov r3, #0x2
4: div r2, r3 ; tested instruction
5: mov r0, #0x1
6: exit
Pre-state:
r2: -6148914691236517206
r3: 2
Post-state:
r2: -3074457345618258603 INTERSECT 0x5555555555555555 (!)
After the tested instruction validator considers r2 to equal
0x5555555555555555 if viewed as unsigned (correct, this is
0xaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaull / 2), but equal -3074457345618258603 or
0xd555555555555555 if viewed as signed, although it cannot be both true.
Additionally, when validating division or modulo of INT64_MIN by -1
overflow happened in the validator possibly triggering an exception.
The following error is shown without sanitizer:
1/1 DPDK:fast-tests / bpf_autotest FAIL 0.37s
killed by signal 8 SIGFPE
With sanitizer the following diagnostic is generated:
lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c:1086:14: runtime error: division of
-9223372036854775808 by -1 cannot be represented in type 'long int'
#0 0x0000027484bb in eval_divmod lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c:1086
#1 0x00000274bcf3 in eval_alu lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c:1280
#2 0x00000275cb3e in evaluate lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c:3192
...
SUMMARY: UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer: undefined-behavior
lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c:1086:14
Change logic to copy results from unsigned division into signed. Add
both validation and execution tests for the case that triggered an
exception. Add validation tests for non-constant division to make sure
it is still valid (ranges of the non-constant division or modulo are not
really minimal, this can be addressed in the future).
Fixes: 8021917293d0 ("bpf: add extra validation for input BPF program")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org
Reported-by: Claudia Cauli <claudiacauli@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Marat Khalili <marat.khalili@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com>
---
app/test/test_bpf.c | 99 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
app/test/test_bpf_validate.c | 135 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c | 38 +++-------
3 files changed, 244 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
diff --git a/app/test/test_bpf.c b/app/test/test_bpf.c
index 6b07e72295db..3205afaa63ad 100644
--- a/app/test/test_bpf.c
+++ b/app/test/test_bpf.c
@@ -393,6 +393,13 @@ cmp_res(const char *func, uint64_t exp_rc, uint64_t ret_rc,
return ret;
}
+/* Empty prepare function */
+static void
+dummy_prepare(void *arg)
+{
+ RTE_SET_USED(arg);
+}
+
/* store immediate test-cases */
static const struct ebpf_insn test_store1_prog[] = {
{
@@ -3157,6 +3164,70 @@ static const struct ebpf_insn test_ld_mbuf3_prog[] = {
},
};
+/* divide INT64_MIN by -1 */
+static const struct ebpf_insn test_int64min_udiv_uint64max_prog[] = {
+ /* Load INT64_MIN into r0 */
+ {
+ .code = (BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | EBPF_DW),
+ .dst_reg = EBPF_REG_0,
+ .imm = (int32_t)INT64_MIN,
+ },
+ {
+ .imm = (int32_t)(INT64_MIN >> 32),
+ },
+ /* Divide r0 by immediate -1 */
+ {
+ .code = (EBPF_ALU64 | BPF_DIV | BPF_K),
+ .dst_reg = EBPF_REG_0,
+ .imm = -1,
+ },
+ /* Exit for correctness otherwise */
+ {
+ .code = (BPF_JMP | EBPF_EXIT),
+ },
+};
+
+static int
+test_int64min_udiv_uint64max_check(uint64_t rc, const void *arg)
+{
+ RTE_SET_USED(arg);
+ /* 0x8000000000000000ull / 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFull == 0 */
+ TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(rc, 0, "expected 0, found %#" PRIx64, rc);
+ return TEST_SUCCESS;
+}
+
+/* modulo INT64_MIN by -1 */
+static const struct ebpf_insn test_int64min_umod_uint64max_prog[] = {
+ /* Load INT64_MIN into r0 */
+ {
+ .code = (BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | EBPF_DW),
+ .dst_reg = EBPF_REG_0,
+ .imm = (int32_t)INT64_MIN,
+ },
+ {
+ .imm = (int32_t)(INT64_MIN >> 32),
+ },
+ /* Modulo r0 by immediate -1 */
+ {
+ .code = (EBPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_K),
+ .dst_reg = EBPF_REG_0,
+ .imm = -1,
+ },
+ /* Exit for correctness otherwise */
+ {
+ .code = (BPF_JMP | EBPF_EXIT),
+ },
+};
+
+static int
+test_int64min_umod_uint64max_check(uint64_t rc, const void *arg)
+{
+ RTE_SET_USED(arg);
+ /* 0x8000000000000000ull % 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFull == 0x8000000000000000ull */
+ TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(rc, (uint64_t)INT64_MIN, "expected INT64_MIN, found %#" PRIx64, rc);
+ return TEST_SUCCESS;
+}
+
/* all bpf test cases */
static const struct bpf_test tests[] = {
{
@@ -3465,6 +3536,34 @@ static const struct bpf_test tests[] = {
/* mbuf as input argument is not supported on 32 bit platform */
.allow_fail = (sizeof(uint64_t) != sizeof(uintptr_t)),
},
+ {
+ .name = "test_int64min_udiv_uint64max",
+ .arg_sz = sizeof(struct dummy_vect8),
+ .prm = {
+ .ins = test_int64min_udiv_uint64max_prog,
+ .nb_ins = RTE_DIM(test_int64min_udiv_uint64max_prog),
+ .prog_arg = {
+ .type = RTE_BPF_ARG_PTR,
+ .size = sizeof(struct dummy_vect8),
+ },
+ },
+ .prepare = dummy_prepare,
+ .check_result = test_int64min_udiv_uint64max_check,
+ },
+ {
+ .name = "test_int64min_umod_uint64max",
+ .arg_sz = 1,
+ .prm = {
+ .ins = test_int64min_umod_uint64max_prog,
+ .nb_ins = RTE_DIM(test_int64min_umod_uint64max_prog),
+ .prog_arg = {
+ .type = RTE_BPF_ARG_PTR,
+ .size = 1,
+ },
+ },
+ .prepare = dummy_prepare,
+ .check_result = test_int64min_umod_uint64max_check,
+ },
};
static int
diff --git a/app/test/test_bpf_validate.c b/app/test/test_bpf_validate.c
index c752d8635756..31a235a55af6 100644
--- a/app/test/test_bpf_validate.c
+++ b/app/test/test_bpf_validate.c
@@ -1154,6 +1154,141 @@ test_alu64_add_x_scalar_scalar(void)
REGISTER_FAST_TEST(bpf_validate_alu64_add_x_scalar_scalar_autotest, NOHUGE_OK, ASAN_OK,
test_alu64_add_x_scalar_scalar);
+/* 64-bit division and modulo of UINT64_MAX*2/3. */
+static int
+test_alu64_div_mod_big_constant(void)
+{
+ const uint64_t dividend = UINT64_MAX / 3 * 2;
+ static const uint64_t divisors[] = {
+ 1,
+ 2,
+ 3,
+ UINT64_MAX / 3,
+ INT64_MAX,
+ INT64_MIN,
+ UINT64_MAX / 3 * 2,
+ UINT64_MAX / 4 * 3,
+ UINT64_MAX,
+ };
+ for (int index = 0; index != RTE_DIM(divisors); ++index) {
+ const uint64_t divisor = divisors[index];
+
+ TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(verify_instruction((struct verify_instruction_param){
+ .tested_instruction = {
+ .code = (EBPF_ALU64 | BPF_DIV | BPF_X),
+ },
+ .pre.dst = make_singleton_domain(dividend),
+ .pre.src = make_singleton_domain(divisor),
+ .post.dst = make_singleton_domain(dividend / divisor),
+ }), "(EBPF_ALU64 | BPF_DIV | BPF_X) check, index=%d", index);
+
+ TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(verify_instruction((struct verify_instruction_param){
+ .tested_instruction = {
+ .code = (EBPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_X),
+ },
+ .pre.dst = make_singleton_domain(dividend),
+ .pre.src = make_singleton_domain(divisor),
+ .post.dst = make_singleton_domain(dividend % divisor),
+ }), "(EBPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_X) check, index=%d", index);
+ }
+
+ return TEST_SUCCESS;
+}
+
+REGISTER_FAST_TEST(bpf_validate_alu64_div_mod_big_constant_autotest, NOHUGE_OK, ASAN_OK,
+ test_alu64_div_mod_big_constant);
+
+/* 64-bit division and modulo of UINT64_MAX/3..UINT64_MAX*2/3 by a constant. */
+static int
+test_alu64_div_mod_big_range(void)
+{
+ const uint64_t dividend_first = UINT64_MAX / 3;
+ const uint64_t dividend_last = UINT64_MAX / 3 * 2;
+ static const uint64_t divisors[] = {
+ 1,
+ 2,
+ 3,
+ UINT64_MAX / 3,
+ INT64_MAX,
+ INT64_MIN,
+ UINT64_MAX / 3 * 2,
+ UINT64_MAX / 4 * 3,
+ UINT64_MAX,
+ };
+ for (int index = 0; index != RTE_DIM(divisors); ++index) {
+ const uint64_t divisor = divisors[index];
+
+ TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(verify_instruction((struct verify_instruction_param){
+ .tested_instruction = {
+ .code = (EBPF_ALU64 | BPF_DIV | BPF_X),
+ },
+ .pre.dst = make_unsigned_domain(dividend_first, dividend_last),
+ .pre.src = make_singleton_domain(divisor),
+ .post.dst = make_unsigned_domain(0, dividend_last),
+ }), "(EBPF_ALU64 | BPF_DIV | BPF_X) check, index=%d", index);
+
+ TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(verify_instruction((struct verify_instruction_param){
+ .tested_instruction = {
+ .code = (EBPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_X),
+ },
+ .pre.dst = make_unsigned_domain(dividend_first, dividend_last),
+ .pre.src = make_singleton_domain(divisor),
+ .post.dst = make_unsigned_domain(0, RTE_MIN(dividend_last, divisor - 1)),
+ }), "(EBPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_X) check, index=%d", index);
+ }
+
+ return TEST_SUCCESS;
+}
+
+REGISTER_FAST_TEST(bpf_validate_alu64_div_mod_big_range_autotest, NOHUGE_OK, ASAN_OK,
+ test_alu64_div_mod_big_range);
+
+/* 64-bit division and modulo of INT64_MIN by -1. */
+static int
+test_alu64_div_mod_overflow(void)
+{
+ TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(verify_instruction((struct verify_instruction_param){
+ .tested_instruction = {
+ .code = (EBPF_ALU64 | BPF_DIV | BPF_K),
+ .imm = -1,
+ },
+ .pre.dst = make_singleton_domain(INT64_MIN),
+ .post.dst = make_singleton_domain(0),
+ }), "(EBPF_ALU64 | BPF_DIV | BPF_K) check");
+
+ TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(verify_instruction((struct verify_instruction_param){
+ .tested_instruction = {
+ .code = (EBPF_ALU64 | BPF_DIV | BPF_X),
+ },
+ .pre.dst = make_singleton_domain(INT64_MIN),
+ .pre.src = make_singleton_domain(-1),
+ .post.dst = make_singleton_domain(0),
+ }), "(EBPF_ALU64 | BPF_DIV | BPF_X) check");
+
+ TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(verify_instruction((struct verify_instruction_param){
+ .tested_instruction = {
+ .code = (EBPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_K),
+ .imm = -1,
+ },
+ .pre.dst = make_singleton_domain(INT64_MIN),
+ .post.dst = make_singleton_domain(INT64_MIN),
+ }), "(EBPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_K) check");
+
+ TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(verify_instruction((struct verify_instruction_param){
+ .tested_instruction = {
+ .code = (EBPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_X),
+ },
+ .pre.dst = make_singleton_domain(INT64_MIN),
+ .pre.src = make_singleton_domain(-1),
+ .post.dst = make_singleton_domain(INT64_MIN),
+ }), "(EBPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_X) check");
+
+ return TEST_SUCCESS;
+}
+
+REGISTER_FAST_TEST(bpf_validate_alu64_div_mod_overflow_autotest, NOHUGE_OK, ASAN_OK,
+ test_alu64_div_mod_overflow);
+
/* 64-bit negation when interval first element is INT64_MIN. */
static int
test_alu64_neg_int64min_first(void)
diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c b/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
index 38e9b033c6d9..14a186b7cbf7 100644
--- a/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
+++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
@@ -932,8 +932,7 @@ eval_mul(struct bpf_reg_val *rd, const struct bpf_reg_val *rs, size_t opsz,
}
static const char *
-eval_divmod(uint32_t op, struct bpf_reg_val *rd, struct bpf_reg_val *rs,
- size_t opsz, uint64_t msk)
+eval_divmod(uint32_t op, struct bpf_reg_val *rd, struct bpf_reg_val *rs, uint64_t msk)
{
/* both operands are constants */
if (rd->u.min == rd->u.max && rs->u.min == rs->u.max) {
@@ -954,34 +953,17 @@ eval_divmod(uint32_t op, struct bpf_reg_val *rd, struct bpf_reg_val *rs,
rd->u.min = 0;
}
- /* if we have 32-bit values - extend them to 64-bit */
- if (opsz == sizeof(uint32_t) * CHAR_BIT) {
- rd->s.min = (int32_t)rd->s.min;
- rd->s.max = (int32_t)rd->s.max;
- rs->s.min = (int32_t)rs->s.min;
- rs->s.max = (int32_t)rs->s.max;
- }
-
- /* both operands are constants */
- if (rd->s.min == rd->s.max && rs->s.min == rs->s.max) {
- if (rs->s.max == 0)
- return "division by 0";
- if (op == BPF_DIV) {
- rd->s.min /= rs->s.min;
- rd->s.max /= rs->s.max;
- } else {
- rd->s.min %= rs->s.min;
- rd->s.max %= rs->s.max;
- }
- } else if (op == BPF_MOD) {
- rd->s.min = RTE_MAX(rd->s.max, 0);
- rd->s.min = RTE_MIN(rd->s.min, 0);
+ if (rd->u.min >= (uint64_t)INT64_MIN || rd->u.max <= (uint64_t)INT64_MAX) {
+ /*
+ * All values have the same sign bit, which means range
+ * contiguous as unsigned is also contiguous as signed,
+ * so we can just reuse it without any changes.
+ */
+ rd->s.min = rd->u.min;
+ rd->s.max = rd->u.max;
} else
eval_smax_bound(rd, msk);
- rd->s.max &= msk;
- rd->s.min &= msk;
-
return NULL;
}
@@ -1165,7 +1147,7 @@ eval_alu(struct bpf_verifier *bvf, const struct ebpf_insn *ins)
else if (op == BPF_MUL)
eval_mul(rd, &rs, opsz, msk);
else if (op == BPF_DIV || op == BPF_MOD)
- err = eval_divmod(op, rd, &rs, opsz, msk);
+ err = eval_divmod(op, rd, &rs, msk);
else if (op == BPF_NEG)
eval_neg(rd, opsz, msk);
else if (op == EBPF_MOV)
--
2.43.0
^ permalink raw reply related
* [PATCH v4 11/24] bpf/validate: fix BPF_NEG of INT64_MIN and 0
From: Marat Khalili @ 2026-06-23 14:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Konstantin Ananyev; +Cc: dev, stable, Claudia Cauli
In-Reply-To: <20260623143215.95318-1-marat.khalili@huawei.com>
Function `eval_neg` did not treat values of INT64_MIN and 0 specially
when calculating negation ranges (e.g. negated unsigned range 0..2
should turn into 0..UINT64_MAX) producing incorrect results. On top of
this negating signed INT64_MIN caused undefined behaviour.
E.g. consider the following program with the current validation code:
Tested program:
0: mov r0, #0x0
1: ldxdw r2, [r1 + 0]
2: lddw r4, #0x8000000000000000
4: jgt r2, r4, L7
5: neg r2, #0x0 ; tested instruction
6: mov r0, #0x1
7: exit
Pre-state:
r2: 0..0x8000000000000000
Post-state:
r2: INT64_MIN..INT64_MIN+1 INTERSECT 0..0x8000000000000000 (!)
After the tested instruction validator considers r2 to be within
INT64_MIN..INT64_MIN+1 if viewed as signed, or within
0..0x8000000000000000 if viewed as unsigned, however if 1 was loaded on
step 1 into r2 it is possible for it to become -1 after the tested
instruction which satisfies neither of the ranges.
With sanitizer the following diagnostic is generated:
lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c:1120:7: runtime error: negation of
-9223372036854775808 cannot be represented in type 'long int'; cast
to an unsigned type to negate
#0 0x000002747230 in eval_neg lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c:1120
#1 0x000002748fb6 in eval_alu lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c:1251
#2 0x000002759dd3 in evaluate lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c:3161
...
SUMMARY: UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer: undefined-behavior
lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c:1120:7
Add missing handling of special cases, add tests.
Fixes: 8021917293d0 ("bpf: add extra validation for input BPF program")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org
Reported-by: Claudia Cauli <claudiacauli@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Marat Khalili <marat.khalili@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com>
---
app/test/test_bpf_validate.c | 126 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c | 55 ++++++++++++---
2 files changed, 173 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/app/test/test_bpf_validate.c b/app/test/test_bpf_validate.c
index aa385ec8c275..c752d8635756 100644
--- a/app/test/test_bpf_validate.c
+++ b/app/test/test_bpf_validate.c
@@ -1154,6 +1154,132 @@ test_alu64_add_x_scalar_scalar(void)
REGISTER_FAST_TEST(bpf_validate_alu64_add_x_scalar_scalar_autotest, NOHUGE_OK, ASAN_OK,
test_alu64_add_x_scalar_scalar);
+/* 64-bit negation when interval first element is INT64_MIN. */
+static int
+test_alu64_neg_int64min_first(void)
+{
+ static const int64_t other_values[] = {
+ INT64_MIN,
+ INT64_MIN + 1,
+ INT64_MIN + 13,
+ -17,
+ -1,
+ 0,
+ 1,
+ 19,
+ INT64_MAX - 23,
+ INT64_MAX - 1,
+ INT64_MAX,
+ };
+ for (int other_index = 0; other_index != RTE_DIM(other_values); ++other_index) {
+ const int64_t other_value = other_values[other_index];
+ TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(verify_instruction((struct verify_instruction_param){
+ .tested_instruction = {
+ .code = (EBPF_ALU64 | BPF_NEG),
+ },
+ .pre.dst = make_signed_domain(INT64_MIN, other_value),
+ .post.dst = other_value > 0 ? unknown :
+ make_unsigned_domain(-(uint64_t)other_value, INT64_MIN),
+ }), "other_index=%d", other_index);
+ }
+ return TEST_SUCCESS;
+}
+
+REGISTER_FAST_TEST(bpf_validate_alu64_neg_int64min_first_autotest, NOHUGE_OK, ASAN_OK,
+ test_alu64_neg_int64min_first);
+
+/* 64-bit negation when interval last element is INT64_MIN. */
+static int
+test_alu64_neg_int64min_last(void)
+{
+ static const uint64_t other_values[] = {
+ 0,
+ 1,
+ 19,
+ INT64_MAX - 23,
+ INT64_MAX - 1,
+ INT64_MAX,
+ INT64_MIN,
+ };
+ for (int other_index = 0; other_index != RTE_DIM(other_values); ++other_index) {
+ const int64_t other_value = other_values[other_index];
+ TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(verify_instruction((struct verify_instruction_param){
+ .tested_instruction = {
+ .code = (EBPF_ALU64 | BPF_NEG),
+ },
+ .pre.dst = make_unsigned_domain(other_value, INT64_MIN),
+ .post.dst = make_signed_domain(INT64_MIN, -(uint64_t)other_value),
+ }), "other_index=%d", other_index);
+ }
+ return TEST_SUCCESS;
+}
+
+REGISTER_FAST_TEST(bpf_validate_alu64_neg_int64min_last_autotest, NOHUGE_OK, ASAN_OK,
+ test_alu64_neg_int64min_last);
+
+/* 64-bit negation when interval first element is zero. */
+static int
+test_alu64_neg_zero_first(void)
+{
+ static const uint64_t other_values[] = {
+ 0,
+ 1,
+ 19,
+ INT64_MAX - 23,
+ INT64_MAX - 1,
+ INT64_MAX,
+ INT64_MIN,
+ INT64_MIN + 1,
+ INT64_MIN + 13,
+ -17,
+ -1,
+ };
+ for (int other_index = 0; other_index != RTE_DIM(other_values); ++other_index) {
+ const uint64_t other_value = other_values[other_index];
+ TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(verify_instruction((struct verify_instruction_param){
+ .tested_instruction = {
+ .code = (EBPF_ALU64 | BPF_NEG),
+ },
+ .pre.dst = make_unsigned_domain(0, other_value),
+ .post.dst = other_value > (uint64_t)INT64_MIN ? unknown :
+ make_signed_domain(-(uint64_t)other_value, 0),
+ }), "other_index=%d", other_index);
+ }
+ return TEST_SUCCESS;
+}
+
+REGISTER_FAST_TEST(bpf_validate_alu64_neg_zero_first_autotest, NOHUGE_OK, ASAN_OK,
+ test_alu64_neg_zero_first);
+
+/* 64-bit negation when interval last element is zero. */
+static int
+test_alu64_neg_zero_last(void)
+{
+ static const int64_t other_values[] = {
+ INT64_MIN,
+ INT64_MIN + 1,
+ INT64_MIN + 13,
+ -17,
+ -1,
+ 0,
+ };
+ for (int other_index = 0; other_index != RTE_DIM(other_values); ++other_index) {
+ const int64_t other_value = other_values[other_index];
+ TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(verify_instruction((struct verify_instruction_param){
+ .tested_instruction = {
+ .code = (EBPF_ALU64 | BPF_NEG),
+ },
+ .pre.dst = make_signed_domain(other_value, 0),
+ .post.dst = make_unsigned_domain(0, -(uint64_t)other_value),
+ }), "other_index=%d", other_index);
+ }
+
+ return TEST_SUCCESS;
+}
+
+REGISTER_FAST_TEST(bpf_validate_alu64_neg_zero_last_autotest, NOHUGE_OK, ASAN_OK,
+ test_alu64_neg_zero_last);
+
/* Jump if greater than immediate. */
static int
test_jmp64_jeq_k(void)
diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c b/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
index 73e925a7dff2..38e9b033c6d9 100644
--- a/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
+++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
@@ -990,6 +990,11 @@ eval_neg(struct bpf_reg_val *rd, size_t opsz, uint64_t msk)
{
uint64_t ux, uy;
int64_t sx, sy;
+ /* additional limits imposed by signed on unsigned and back */
+ struct bpf_reg_val cross_limits = {
+ .s = { INT64_MIN, INT64_MAX },
+ .u = { 0, UINT64_MAX },
+ };
/* if we have 32-bit values - extend them to 64-bit */
if (opsz == sizeof(uint32_t) * CHAR_BIT) {
@@ -997,11 +1002,29 @@ eval_neg(struct bpf_reg_val *rd, size_t opsz, uint64_t msk)
rd->u.max = (int32_t)rd->u.max;
}
- ux = -(int64_t)rd->u.min & msk;
- uy = -(int64_t)rd->u.max & msk;
+ if (rd->u.min == 0) {
+ /* special case: ranges that include 0 and, possibly, 1 */
+
+ /*
+ * Calculate requirements on the signed range of negation.
+ * It is only possible when negated range does not cross from
+ * INT64_MIN to INT64_MAX, which means our original range does
+ * not reach (uint64_t)-INT64_MAX.
+ */
+ if (rd->u.max < (uint64_t)-INT64_MAX) {
+ cross_limits.s.min = -rd->u.max;
+ cross_limits.s.max = -rd->u.min;
+ }
+
+ if (rd->u.max != 0)
+ rd->u.max = UINT64_MAX;
+ } else {
+ ux = -rd->u.min & msk;
+ uy = -rd->u.max & msk;
- rd->u.max = RTE_MAX(ux, uy);
- rd->u.min = RTE_MIN(ux, uy);
+ rd->u.max = RTE_MAX(ux, uy);
+ rd->u.min = RTE_MIN(ux, uy);
+ }
/* if we have 32-bit values - extend them to 64-bit */
if (opsz == sizeof(uint32_t) * CHAR_BIT) {
@@ -1009,11 +1032,27 @@ eval_neg(struct bpf_reg_val *rd, size_t opsz, uint64_t msk)
rd->s.max = (int32_t)rd->s.max;
}
- sx = -rd->s.min & msk;
- sy = -rd->s.max & msk;
+ if (rd->s.min == INT64_MIN) {
+ /* special case: negation of INT64_MIN is INT64_MIN */
+ if (rd->s.max <= 0) {
+ cross_limits.u.min = -(uint64_t)rd->s.max;
+ cross_limits.u.max = -(uint64_t)rd->s.min;
+ }
+ if (rd->s.max != INT64_MIN)
+ rd->s.max = INT64_MAX;
+ } else {
+ /* since max >= min, neither can be INT64_MIN here */
+ sx = -rd->s.min & msk;
+ sy = -rd->s.max & msk;
+
+ rd->s.max = RTE_MAX(sx, sy);
+ rd->s.min = RTE_MIN(sx, sy);
+ }
- rd->s.max = RTE_MAX(sx, sy);
- rd->s.min = RTE_MIN(sx, sy);
+ rd->s.min = RTE_MAX(rd->s.min, cross_limits.s.min) & msk;
+ rd->s.max = RTE_MIN(rd->s.max, cross_limits.s.max) & msk;
+ rd->u.min = RTE_MAX(rd->u.min, cross_limits.u.min) & msk;
+ rd->u.max = RTE_MIN(rd->u.max, cross_limits.u.max) & msk;
}
static const char *
--
2.43.0
^ permalink raw reply related
* [PATCH v4 10/24] bpf/validate: fix EBPF_JSLT | BPF_X evaluation
From: Marat Khalili @ 2026-06-23 14:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Konstantin Ananyev, Ferruh Yigit; +Cc: dev, stable
In-Reply-To: <20260623143215.95318-1-marat.khalili@huawei.com>
Function `eval_jcc` was never called for instruction `(BPF_JMP |
EBPF_JSLT | BPF_X)` due to omission from the table `ins_chk`.
E.g. consider the following program with the current validation code:
Tested program:
0: mov r0, #0x0
1: ldxdw r2, [r1 + 0]
2: jslt r2, #0xfffffffd, L9
3: jsgt r2, #0x3, L9
4: mov r3, #0x0
5: jslt r2, r3, L8 ; tested instruction
6: mov r0, #0x1
7: exit
8: mov r0, #0x2
9: exit
Pre-state:
r2:
r3:
// skip Post-state
Jump-state:
r2: -3..3
Step 8 should only be reachable (jumped to) for values of r2 less than 0
(value assigned to r3 at step 4), but validator still considers r2 to
have same range -3..3 that it had before the step 5. Moreover the
pre-state that should have been saved on step 5 is not filled in the
test DEBUG output at all, demonstrating that evaluation of this state
just did not happen.
Add missing function and change execution logic to not ignore missing
functions. Add test.
Fixes: 6e12ec4c4d6d ("bpf: add more checks")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org
Signed-off-by: Marat Khalili <marat.khalili@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com>
---
app/test/test_bpf_validate.c | 18 +++++++++++++++
lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
2 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/app/test/test_bpf_validate.c b/app/test/test_bpf_validate.c
index f05f8a248281..aa385ec8c275 100644
--- a/app/test/test_bpf_validate.c
+++ b/app/test/test_bpf_validate.c
@@ -1172,6 +1172,24 @@ test_jmp64_jeq_k(void)
REGISTER_FAST_TEST(bpf_validate_jmp64_jeq_k_autotest, NOHUGE_OK, ASAN_OK,
test_jmp64_jeq_k);
+/* Jump if signed less than another register. */
+static int
+test_jmp64_jslt_x(void)
+{
+ return verify_instruction((struct verify_instruction_param){
+ .tested_instruction = {
+ .code = (BPF_JMP | EBPF_JSLT | BPF_X),
+ },
+ .pre.dst = make_signed_domain(-3, 3),
+ .pre.src = make_signed_domain(0, 0),
+ .post.dst = make_signed_domain(0, 3),
+ .jump.dst = make_signed_domain(-3, -1),
+ });
+}
+
+REGISTER_FAST_TEST(bpf_validate_jmp64_jslt_x_autotest, NOHUGE_OK, ASAN_OK,
+ test_jmp64_jslt_x);
+
/* 64-bit load from heap (should be set to unknown). */
static int
test_mem_ldx_dw_heap(void)
diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c b/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
index 6a2d5974e036..73e925a7dff2 100644
--- a/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
+++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
@@ -1372,6 +1372,14 @@ eval_store(struct bpf_verifier *bvf, const struct ebpf_insn *ins)
return NULL;
}
+static const char *
+eval_ja(struct bpf_verifier *bvf, const struct ebpf_insn *ins)
+{
+ RTE_SET_USED(bvf);
+ RTE_SET_USED(ins);
+ return NULL;
+}
+
static const char *
eval_func_arg(struct bpf_verifier *bvf, const struct rte_bpf_arg *arg,
struct bpf_reg_val *rv)
@@ -2023,6 +2031,7 @@ static const struct bpf_ins_check ins_chk[UINT8_MAX + 1] = {
.mask = { .dreg = ZERO_REG, .sreg = ZERO_REG},
.off = { .min = 0, .max = UINT16_MAX},
.imm = { .min = 0, .max = 0},
+ .eval = eval_ja,
},
/* jcc IMM instructions */
[(BPF_JMP | BPF_JEQ | BPF_K)] = {
@@ -2138,6 +2147,7 @@ static const struct bpf_ins_check ins_chk[UINT8_MAX + 1] = {
.mask = { .dreg = ALL_REGS, .sreg = ALL_REGS},
.off = { .min = 0, .max = UINT16_MAX},
.imm = { .min = 0, .max = 0},
+ .eval = eval_jcc,
},
[(BPF_JMP | EBPF_JSGE | BPF_X)] = {
.mask = { .dreg = ALL_REGS, .sreg = ALL_REGS},
@@ -2890,22 +2900,27 @@ evaluate(struct bpf_verifier *bvf)
stats.nb_save++;
}
- if (ins_chk[op].eval != NULL) {
- rc = __rte_bpf_validate_debug_evaluate_step(
- debug, idx, prev_nb_edge > 1 ?
- RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_EVENT_BRANCH_ENTER :
- RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_EVENT_STEP);
- if (rc < 0)
- break;
+ if (ins_chk[op].eval == NULL) {
+ RTE_BPF_LOG_FUNC_LINE(ERR,
+ "Unrecognized instruction at pc: %u", idx);
+ rc = -EINVAL;
+ break;
+ }
- err = ins_chk[op].eval(bvf, ins + idx);
- stats.nb_eval++;
- if (err != NULL) {
- RTE_BPF_LOG_FUNC_LINE(ERR,
- "%s at pc: %u", err, idx);
- rc = -EINVAL;
- break;
- }
+ rc = __rte_bpf_validate_debug_evaluate_step(debug, idx,
+ prev_nb_edge > 1 ?
+ RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_EVENT_BRANCH_ENTER :
+ RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_EVENT_STEP);
+ if (rc < 0)
+ break;
+
+ err = ins_chk[op].eval(bvf, ins + idx);
+ stats.nb_eval++;
+ if (err != NULL) {
+ RTE_BPF_LOG_FUNC_LINE(ERR,
+ "%s at pc: %u", err, idx);
+ rc = -EINVAL;
+ break;
}
log_dbg_eval_state(bvf, ins + idx, idx);
--
2.43.0
^ permalink raw reply related
* [PATCH v4 09/24] test/bpf_validate: add harness for pointer tests
From: Marat Khalili @ 2026-06-23 14:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: dev, Konstantin Ananyev
In-Reply-To: <20260623143215.95318-1-marat.khalili@huawei.com>
Add necessary harness for testing pointer values in the registers and
add basic tests for adding pointers and scalars in various combinations.
These tests cover previously introduced fixes for BPF_ADD and BPF_LDX.
Signed-off-by: Marat Khalili <marat.khalili@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com>
---
app/test/test_bpf_validate.c | 311 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 297 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/app/test/test_bpf_validate.c b/app/test/test_bpf_validate.c
index 350847d07ae5..f05f8a248281 100644
--- a/app/test/test_bpf_validate.c
+++ b/app/test/test_bpf_validate.c
@@ -51,9 +51,12 @@ struct unsigned_interval {
* parameters (instruction is not accessing corresponding register).
* It's not the same as `unknown` domain which describes register that is being
* used but can hold any value.
+ *
+ * Flag `is_pointer` tells if the interval is relative to some memory area base.
*/
struct domain {
bool is_defined;
+ bool is_pointer;
struct signed_interval s;
struct unsigned_interval u;
};
@@ -149,7 +152,16 @@ make_unsigned_domain(uint64_t min, uint64_t max)
};
}
-/* Return true if domain is a singleton. */
+/* Create domain from signed interval. */
+static struct domain
+make_pointer_domain(int64_t min, int64_t max)
+{
+ struct domain result = make_signed_domain(min, max);
+ result.is_pointer = true;
+ return result;
+}
+
+/* Return true if domain is a scalar or pointer singleton. */
static bool
domain_is_singleton(const struct domain *domain)
{
@@ -195,7 +207,8 @@ format_domain(char *buffer, size_t bufsz, const struct domain *domain)
const int rc = !domain->is_defined ?
snprintf(buffer, bufsz, "UNDEFINED") :
- snprintf(buffer, bufsz, "%s INTERSECT %s",
+ snprintf(buffer, bufsz, "%s %s INTERSECT %s",
+ domain->is_pointer ? "pointer" : "scalar",
format_interval(signed_buffer, sizeof(signed_buffer), 'd',
domain->s.min, domain->s.max),
format_interval(unsigned_buffer, sizeof(unsigned_buffer), 'x',
@@ -228,7 +241,7 @@ may_jump(const struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug,
return (result & RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_MAY_BE_TRUE) != 0;
}
-/* Check interval of the register interpreted as signed. */
+/* Check interval of the register interpreted as signed scalar. */
static int
check_signed_interval(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug,
uint8_t reg, struct signed_interval interval)
@@ -274,7 +287,7 @@ check_signed_interval(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug,
return TEST_SUCCESS;
}
-/* Check interval of the register interpreted as unsigned. */
+/* Check interval of the register interpreted as unsigned scalar. */
static int
check_unsigned_interval(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug,
uint8_t reg, struct unsigned_interval interval)
@@ -320,18 +333,154 @@ check_unsigned_interval(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug,
return TEST_SUCCESS;
}
-/* Check domain of the register interpreted as value. */
+/* Check interval of the register relative to the base register. */
+static int
+check_relative_interval(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug,
+ uint8_t reg, struct signed_interval interval, uint8_t base_reg)
+{
+ char buffer[VALUE_FORMAT_BUFFER_SIZE];
+
+ TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(may_jump(debug,
+ &(struct ebpf_insn){
+ .code = (BPF_JMP | EBPF_JLT | BPF_X),
+ .dst_reg = reg,
+ .src_reg = base_reg,
+ }, interval.min),
+ false,
+ "r%hhu u< r%hhu + %s is impossible", reg, base_reg,
+ format_value(buffer, sizeof(buffer), 'd', interval.min));
+
+ TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(may_jump(debug,
+ &(struct ebpf_insn){
+ .code = (BPF_JMP | BPF_JEQ | BPF_X),
+ .dst_reg = reg,
+ .src_reg = base_reg,
+ }, interval.min),
+ true,
+ "r%hhu == r%hhu + %s is possible", reg, base_reg,
+ format_value(buffer, sizeof(buffer), 'd', interval.min));
+
+ TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(may_jump(debug,
+ &(struct ebpf_insn){
+ .code = (BPF_JMP | BPF_JEQ | BPF_X),
+ .dst_reg = reg,
+ .src_reg = base_reg,
+ }, interval.max),
+ true,
+ "r%hhu == r%hhu + %s is possible", reg, base_reg,
+ format_value(buffer, sizeof(buffer), 'd', interval.max));
+
+ TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(may_jump(debug,
+ &(struct ebpf_insn){
+ .code = (BPF_JMP | BPF_JGT | BPF_X),
+ .dst_reg = reg,
+ .src_reg = base_reg,
+ }, interval.max),
+ false,
+ "r%hhu u> r%hhu + %s is impossible", reg, base_reg,
+ format_value(buffer, sizeof(buffer), 'd', interval.max));
+
+ return TEST_SUCCESS;
+}
+
+/*
+ * Check access of the register interpreted as pointer.
+ *
+ * Unlike other similar functions, min > max is not a problem here,
+ * so either signed or unsigned pair can be passed without any issues.
+ *
+ * This is the reason we are not using signed_interval or unsigned_interval here
+ * to avoid confusion.
+ */
static int
-check_domain_impl(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug, uint8_t reg,
+check_pointer_access(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug, uint8_t reg,
+ uint64_t min, uint64_t max, size_t area_size)
+{
+ char buffer[VALUE_FORMAT_BUFFER_SIZE];
+
+ /* Start and end of the valid offsets window (unless empty). */
+ const uint64_t window_begin = -min;
+ const uint64_t window_end = area_size - max;
+
+ /* Only have accessible bytes if the interval is smaller than the area. */
+ const uint64_t interval_size = max - min;
+ const bool window_empty = (interval_size >= area_size);
+
+ TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(rte_bpf_validate_debug_can_access(debug,
+ &(struct ebpf_insn){
+ .code = (BPF_LDX | BPF_B | BPF_MEM),
+ .src_reg = reg
+ }, window_begin - 1),
+ false,
+ "r%hhu + %s (before window begin) dereference is invalid", reg,
+ format_value(buffer, sizeof(buffer), 'd', window_begin - 1));
+
+ TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(rte_bpf_validate_debug_can_access(debug,
+ &(struct ebpf_insn){
+ .code = (BPF_LDX | BPF_B | BPF_MEM),
+ .src_reg = reg
+ }, window_begin),
+ !window_empty,
+ "r%hhu + %s (after window begin) dereference is %s", reg,
+ format_value(buffer, sizeof(buffer), 'd', window_begin),
+ window_empty ? "invalid for empty window" : "valid");
+
+ TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(rte_bpf_validate_debug_can_access(debug,
+ &(struct ebpf_insn){
+ .code = (BPF_LDX | BPF_B | BPF_MEM),
+ .src_reg = reg
+ }, window_end - 1),
+ !window_empty,
+ "r%hhu + %s (before window end) dereference is %s", reg,
+ format_value(buffer, sizeof(buffer), 'd', window_end - 1),
+ window_empty ? "invalid for empty window" : "valid");
+
+ TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(rte_bpf_validate_debug_can_access(debug,
+ &(struct ebpf_insn){
+ .code = (BPF_LDX | BPF_B | BPF_MEM),
+ .src_reg = reg
+ }, window_end),
+ false,
+ "r%hhu + %s (after window end) dereference is invalid", reg,
+ format_value(buffer, sizeof(buffer), 'd', window_end));
+
+ return TEST_SUCCESS;
+}
+
+/* Check domain of the register interpreted as absolute value. */
+static int
+check_scalar_domain(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug, uint8_t reg,
const struct domain *domain)
{
TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(
check_signed_interval(debug, reg, domain->s),
- "signed interval check");
+ "absolute signed interval check");
TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(
check_unsigned_interval(debug, reg, domain->u),
- "unsigned interval check");
+ "absolute unsigned interval check");
+
+ return TEST_SUCCESS;
+}
+
+/* Check domain of the register interpreted as relative pointer. */
+static int
+check_pointer_domain(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug, uint8_t reg,
+ const struct domain *domain, uint8_t base_reg, size_t area_size)
+{
+ TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(
+ check_relative_interval(debug, reg, domain->s, base_reg),
+ "relative interval check");
+
+ TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(
+ check_pointer_access(debug, reg, domain->s.min, domain->s.max,
+ area_size),
+ "pointer signed access check");
+
+ TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(
+ check_pointer_access(debug, reg, domain->u.min, domain->u.max,
+ area_size),
+ "pointer unsigned access check");
return TEST_SUCCESS;
}
@@ -339,11 +488,13 @@ check_domain_impl(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug, uint8_t reg,
/* Check domain of the register and format the values in case of an error. */
static int
check_domain(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug, uint8_t reg,
- const struct domain *domain)
+ const struct domain *domain, uint8_t base_reg, size_t area_size)
{
char buffer[REGISTER_FORMAT_BUFFER_SIZE];
- const int rc = check_domain_impl(debug, reg, domain);
+ const int rc = domain->is_pointer ?
+ check_pointer_domain(debug, reg, domain, base_reg, area_size) :
+ check_scalar_domain(debug, reg, domain);
if (rc != TEST_SUCCESS) {
TEST_LOG_LINE(WARNING, "\tExpected: r%hhu = %s", reg,
@@ -419,13 +570,13 @@ compare_and_jump(struct ebpf_insn **ins, uint8_t op, uint8_t reg,
}
/*
- * Prepare register to be in the specified domain.
+ * Prepare register to be in the specified scalar domain.
*
* Unless singleton, load unknown value into it and clamp it with conditional jumps.
* (Jump offsets are not filled and should be patched in by the caller.)
*/
static void
-prepare_domain(struct ebpf_insn **ins, uint8_t reg,
+prepare_scalar_domain(struct ebpf_insn **ins, uint8_t reg,
const struct domain *domain, uint8_t base_reg, int *service_cell_count,
uint8_t tmp_reg)
{
@@ -460,6 +611,28 @@ prepare_domain(struct ebpf_insn **ins, uint8_t reg,
compare_and_jump(ins, EBPF_JSGT, reg, domain->s.max, tmp_reg);
}
+/*
+ * Prepare register to be in the specified scalar or pointer domain, if any.
+ *
+ * If `domain` is NULL, do nothing. Otherwise prepare scalar domain,
+ * and then add base register to it to convert it to a pointer, if needed.
+ */
+static void
+prepare_domain(struct ebpf_insn **ins, uint8_t reg,
+ const struct domain *domain, uint8_t base_reg, int *service_cell_count,
+ uint8_t tmp_reg)
+{
+ prepare_scalar_domain(ins, reg, domain, base_reg, service_cell_count, tmp_reg);
+
+ if (domain->is_pointer)
+ /* Add base_reg to convert resulting scalar into a pointer. */
+ *(*ins)++ = (struct ebpf_insn){
+ .code = (EBPF_ALU64 | BPF_ADD | BPF_X),
+ .dst_reg = reg,
+ .src_reg = base_reg,
+ };
+}
+
static void
fill_verify_instruction_defaults(struct verify_instruction_param *prm)
{
@@ -645,7 +818,8 @@ point_callback(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug, const struct verify_instruc
if (state->dst.is_defined) {
TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(
- check_domain(debug, ctx->dst_reg, &state->dst),
+ check_domain(debug, ctx->dst_reg, &state->dst,
+ ctx->base_reg, ctx->prm.area_size),
"dst domain check");
TEST_LOG_LINE(DEBUG, "Successfully checked r%hhu.", ctx->dst_reg);
} else
@@ -658,7 +832,8 @@ point_callback(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug, const struct verify_instruc
if (state->src.is_defined) {
TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(
- check_domain(debug, ctx->src_reg, &state->src),
+ check_domain(debug, ctx->src_reg, &state->src,
+ ctx->base_reg, ctx->prm.area_size),
"src domain check");
TEST_LOG_LINE(DEBUG, "Successfully checked r%hhu.", ctx->src_reg);
} else
@@ -889,6 +1064,96 @@ test_alu64_add_k(void)
REGISTER_FAST_TEST(bpf_validate_alu64_add_k_autotest, NOHUGE_OK, ASAN_OK,
test_alu64_add_k);
+/* 64-bit addition of immediate to a pointer range. */
+static int
+test_alu64_add_k_pointer(void)
+{
+ return verify_instruction((struct verify_instruction_param){
+ .tested_instruction = {
+ .code = (EBPF_ALU64 | BPF_ADD | BPF_K),
+ .imm = 17,
+ },
+ .area_size = 256,
+ .pre.dst = make_pointer_domain(11, 29),
+ .post.dst = make_pointer_domain(11 + 17, 29 + 17),
+ });
+}
+
+REGISTER_FAST_TEST(bpf_validate_alu64_add_k_pointer_autotest, NOHUGE_OK, ASAN_OK,
+ test_alu64_add_k_pointer);
+
+/* 64-bit addition of pointer to a pointer. */
+static int
+test_alu64_add_x_pointer_pointer(void)
+{
+ return verify_instruction((struct verify_instruction_param){
+ .tested_instruction = {
+ .code = (EBPF_ALU64 | BPF_ADD | BPF_X),
+ },
+ .area_size = 256,
+ .pre.dst = make_pointer_domain(11, 29),
+ .pre.src = make_pointer_domain(17, 23),
+ .post.dst = unknown,
+ });
+}
+
+REGISTER_FAST_TEST(bpf_validate_alu64_add_x_pointer_pointer_autotest, NOHUGE_OK, ASAN_OK,
+ test_alu64_add_x_pointer_pointer);
+
+/* 64-bit addition of scalar to a pointer. */
+static int
+test_alu64_add_x_pointer_scalar(void)
+{
+ return verify_instruction((struct verify_instruction_param){
+ .tested_instruction = {
+ .code = (EBPF_ALU64 | BPF_ADD | BPF_X),
+ },
+ .area_size = 256,
+ .pre.dst = make_pointer_domain(11, 29),
+ .pre.src = make_signed_domain(17, 23),
+ .post.dst = make_pointer_domain(11 + 17, 29 + 23),
+ });
+}
+
+REGISTER_FAST_TEST(bpf_validate_alu64_add_x_pointer_scalar_autotest, NOHUGE_OK, ASAN_OK,
+ test_alu64_add_x_pointer_scalar);
+
+/* 64-bit addition of pointer to a scalar. */
+static int
+test_alu64_add_x_scalar_pointer(void)
+{
+ return verify_instruction((struct verify_instruction_param){
+ .tested_instruction = {
+ .code = (EBPF_ALU64 | BPF_ADD | BPF_X),
+ },
+ .area_size = 256,
+ .pre.dst = make_signed_domain(11, 29),
+ .pre.src = make_pointer_domain(17, 23),
+ .post.dst = make_pointer_domain(11 + 17, 29 + 23),
+ });
+}
+
+REGISTER_FAST_TEST(bpf_validate_alu64_add_x_scalar_pointer_autotest, NOHUGE_OK, ASAN_OK,
+ test_alu64_add_x_scalar_pointer);
+
+/* 64-bit addition of scalar to a scalar. */
+static int
+test_alu64_add_x_scalar_scalar(void)
+{
+ return verify_instruction((struct verify_instruction_param){
+ .tested_instruction = {
+ .code = (EBPF_ALU64 | BPF_ADD | BPF_X),
+ },
+ .area_size = 256,
+ .pre.dst = make_signed_domain(11, 29),
+ .pre.src = make_signed_domain(17, 23),
+ .post.dst = make_signed_domain(11 + 17, 29 + 23),
+ });
+}
+
+REGISTER_FAST_TEST(bpf_validate_alu64_add_x_scalar_scalar_autotest, NOHUGE_OK, ASAN_OK,
+ test_alu64_add_x_scalar_scalar);
+
/* Jump if greater than immediate. */
static int
test_jmp64_jeq_k(void)
@@ -906,3 +1171,21 @@ test_jmp64_jeq_k(void)
REGISTER_FAST_TEST(bpf_validate_jmp64_jeq_k_autotest, NOHUGE_OK, ASAN_OK,
test_jmp64_jeq_k);
+
+/* 64-bit load from heap (should be set to unknown). */
+static int
+test_mem_ldx_dw_heap(void)
+{
+ return verify_instruction((struct verify_instruction_param){
+ .tested_instruction = {
+ .code = (BPF_MEM | BPF_LDX | EBPF_DW),
+ .off = 16,
+ },
+ .area_size = 24,
+ .pre.src = make_pointer_domain(0, 0),
+ .post.dst = unknown,
+ });
+}
+
+REGISTER_FAST_TEST(bpf_validate_mem_ldx_dw_heap_autotest, NOHUGE_OK, ASAN_OK,
+ test_mem_ldx_dw_heap);
--
2.43.0
^ permalink raw reply related
* [PATCH v4 08/24] test/bpf_validate: add setup and basic tests
From: Marat Khalili @ 2026-06-23 14:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: dev, Konstantin Ananyev
In-Reply-To: <20260623143215.95318-1-marat.khalili@huawei.com>
Introduce tests for validation of specific eBPF instructions, generating
a sample eBPF program setting specified pre-conditions for the
instruction, then validating both pre- and post-conditions using step
execution of the validation over the validate debug interface.
Signed-off-by: Marat Khalili <marat.khalili@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com>
---
app/test/meson.build | 1 +
app/test/test_bpf_validate.c | 908 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 909 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 app/test/test_bpf_validate.c
diff --git a/app/test/meson.build b/app/test/meson.build
index 61024125a7c6..909d76f2f50a 100644
--- a/app/test/meson.build
+++ b/app/test/meson.build
@@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ source_file_deps = {
'test_bitset.c': [],
'test_bitratestats.c': ['metrics', 'bitratestats', 'ethdev'] + sample_packet_forward_deps,
'test_bpf.c': ['bpf', 'net'],
+ 'test_bpf_validate.c': ['bpf'],
'test_byteorder.c': [],
'test_cfgfile.c': ['cfgfile'],
'test_cksum.c': ['net'],
diff --git a/app/test/test_bpf_validate.c b/app/test/test_bpf_validate.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..350847d07ae5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/app/test/test_bpf_validate.c
@@ -0,0 +1,908 @@
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
+ * Copyright(c) 2025 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
+ */
+
+#include "test.h"
+
+#include <bpf_def.h>
+#include <rte_bpf.h>
+#include <rte_bpf_validate_debug.h>
+#include <rte_errno.h>
+
+/*
+ * Tests of BPF validation.
+ */
+
+extern int test_bpf_validate_logtype;
+#define RTE_LOGTYPE_TEST_BPF_VALIDATE test_bpf_validate_logtype
+#define TEST_LOG_LINE(level, ...) \
+ RTE_LOG_LINE(level, TEST_BPF_VALIDATE, "" __VA_ARGS__)
+
+RTE_LOG_REGISTER(test_bpf_validate_logtype, test.bpf_validate, NOTICE);
+
+/* Special value indicating that program counter variable is not being used. */
+#define NO_PROGRAM_COUNTER UINT32_MAX
+
+/* Special value indicating that register variable is not being used. */
+#define NO_REGISTER UINT8_MAX
+
+/* Sizes of text buffers used for formatting various debug outputs. */
+#define VALUE_FORMAT_BUFFER_SIZE 24
+#define INTERVAL_FORMAT_BUFFER_SIZE 64
+#define REGISTER_FORMAT_BUFFER_SIZE 256
+#define DISASSEMBLY_FORMAT_BUFFER_SIZE 64
+
+/* Interval bounded by two signed values, inclusive; min <= max. */
+struct signed_interval {
+ int64_t min;
+ int64_t max;
+};
+
+/* Interval bounded by two unsigned values, inclusive; min <= max. */
+struct unsigned_interval {
+ uint64_t min;
+ uint64_t max;
+};
+
+/*
+ * Expected interval of register values.
+ *
+ * If `is_defined` is not set, domain is considered to be unused in verification
+ * parameters (instruction is not accessing corresponding register).
+ * It's not the same as `unknown` domain which describes register that is being
+ * used but can hold any value.
+ */
+struct domain {
+ bool is_defined;
+ struct signed_interval s;
+ struct unsigned_interval u;
+};
+
+/* Expected validation state at certain point. */
+struct state {
+ /* Specifies that the branch is dynamically unreachable. */
+ bool is_unreachable;
+ struct domain dst;
+ struct domain src;
+};
+
+/* Instruction verification parameters. */
+struct verify_instruction_param {
+ struct ebpf_insn tested_instruction;
+ size_t area_size;
+ /* States just before the tested instruction, just after, or if jumped. */
+ struct state pre;
+ struct state post;
+ struct state jump;
+};
+
+/* Point (pre/post/jump) specific verification context. */
+struct point_context {
+ uint32_t program_counter;
+ uint32_t hit_count;
+ char formatted_dst[REGISTER_FORMAT_BUFFER_SIZE];
+ char formatted_src[REGISTER_FORMAT_BUFFER_SIZE];
+};
+
+/* Verification context. */
+struct verify_instruction_context {
+ struct verify_instruction_param prm;
+ /* Allocation of registers in the generated program. */
+ uint8_t base_reg;
+ uint8_t dst_reg;
+ uint8_t src_reg;
+ uint8_t tmp_reg;
+ /* Number of times invalid state callback was called. */
+ uint32_t invalid_state_count;
+ /* Contexts just before the tested instruction, just after, or if jumped. */
+ struct point_context pre;
+ struct point_context post;
+ struct point_context jump;
+};
+
+/* Domain with both signed and unsigned interval having maximum size. */
+static const struct domain unknown = {
+ .is_defined = true,
+ .s = { .min = INT64_MIN, .max = INT64_MAX },
+ .u = { .min = 0, .max = UINT64_MAX },
+};
+
+
+/* BUILDING DOMAINS */
+
+/* Create domain from singleton interval. */
+static struct domain
+make_singleton_domain(uint64_t value)
+{
+ return (struct domain){
+ .is_defined = true,
+ .s = { .min = value, .max = value },
+ .u = { .min = value, .max = value },
+ };
+}
+
+/* Create domain from signed interval. */
+static struct domain
+make_signed_domain(int64_t min, int64_t max)
+{
+ RTE_VERIFY(min <= max);
+ return (struct domain){
+ .is_defined = true,
+ .s = { .min = min, .max = max },
+ .u = (min ^ max) >= 0 ?
+ (struct unsigned_interval){ .min = min, .max = max } :
+ unknown.u,
+ };
+}
+
+/* Create domain from unsigned interval. */
+static struct domain
+make_unsigned_domain(uint64_t min, uint64_t max)
+{
+ RTE_VERIFY(min <= max);
+ return (struct domain){
+ .is_defined = true,
+ .s = (int64_t)(min ^ max) >= 0 ?
+ (struct signed_interval){ .min = min, .max = max } :
+ unknown.s,
+ .u = { .min = min, .max = max },
+ };
+}
+
+/* Return true if domain is a singleton. */
+static bool
+domain_is_singleton(const struct domain *domain)
+{
+ return domain->s.min == domain->s.max &&
+ (uint64_t)domain->s.max == domain->u.min &&
+ domain->u.min == domain->u.max;
+}
+
+/* Print error message into buffer if rc signifies error or overflow. */
+static void
+handle_format_errors(char *buffer, size_t bufsz, int rc)
+{
+ if (rc < 0)
+ snprintf(buffer, bufsz, "FORMAT ERROR %d!", -rc);
+ else if ((unsigned int)rc >= bufsz)
+ snprintf(buffer, bufsz, "FORMAT OVERFLOW!");
+}
+
+/* Format register information into provided buffer and return the buffer. */
+static const char *
+format_value(char *buffer, size_t bufsz, char format, uint64_t value)
+{
+ handle_format_errors(buffer, bufsz,
+ rte_bpf_validate_debug_format_value(buffer, bufsz, format, value));
+ return buffer;
+}
+
+/* Format register information into provided buffer and return the buffer. */
+static const char *
+format_interval(char *buffer, size_t bufsz, char format, uint64_t min, uint64_t max)
+{
+ handle_format_errors(buffer, bufsz,
+ rte_bpf_validate_debug_format_interval(buffer, bufsz, format, min, max));
+ return buffer;
+}
+
+/* Format domain information into provided buffer and return the buffer. */
+static const char *
+format_domain(char *buffer, size_t bufsz, const struct domain *domain)
+{
+ char signed_buffer[INTERVAL_FORMAT_BUFFER_SIZE];
+ char unsigned_buffer[INTERVAL_FORMAT_BUFFER_SIZE];
+
+ const int rc = !domain->is_defined ?
+ snprintf(buffer, bufsz, "UNDEFINED") :
+ snprintf(buffer, bufsz, "%s INTERSECT %s",
+ format_interval(signed_buffer, sizeof(signed_buffer), 'd',
+ domain->s.min, domain->s.max),
+ format_interval(unsigned_buffer, sizeof(unsigned_buffer), 'x',
+ domain->u.min, domain->u.max));
+
+ handle_format_errors(buffer, bufsz, rc < 0 ? -errno : rc);
+
+ return buffer;
+}
+
+/* Format register information into provided buffer and return the buffer. */
+static const char *
+format_register(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug, char *buffer, size_t bufsz, uint8_t reg)
+{
+ handle_format_errors(buffer, bufsz,
+ rte_bpf_validate_debug_format_register_info(debug, buffer, bufsz, reg));
+ return buffer;
+}
+
+
+/* CHECKING REGISTER ACTUAL DOMAINS */
+
+/* Return true the specified conditional jump _may_ occur at current state. */
+static bool
+may_jump(const struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug,
+ const struct ebpf_insn *jump, uint64_t imm64)
+{
+ const int result = rte_bpf_validate_debug_may_jump(debug, jump, imm64);
+ RTE_VERIFY(result >= 0);
+ return (result & RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_MAY_BE_TRUE) != 0;
+}
+
+/* Check interval of the register interpreted as signed. */
+static int
+check_signed_interval(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug,
+ uint8_t reg, struct signed_interval interval)
+{
+ char buffer[VALUE_FORMAT_BUFFER_SIZE];
+
+ TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(may_jump(debug,
+ &(struct ebpf_insn){
+ .code = (BPF_JMP | EBPF_JSLT | BPF_K),
+ .dst_reg = reg,
+ }, interval.min),
+ false,
+ "r%hhu s< %s is impossible", reg,
+ format_value(buffer, sizeof(buffer), 'd', interval.min));
+
+ TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(may_jump(debug,
+ &(struct ebpf_insn){
+ .code = (BPF_JMP | BPF_JEQ | BPF_K),
+ .dst_reg = reg,
+ }, interval.min),
+ true,
+ "r%hhu == %s is possible", reg,
+ format_value(buffer, sizeof(buffer), 'd', interval.min));
+
+ TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(may_jump(debug,
+ &(struct ebpf_insn){
+ .code = (BPF_JMP | BPF_JEQ | BPF_K),
+ .dst_reg = reg,
+ }, interval.max),
+ true,
+ "r%hhu == %s is possible", reg,
+ format_value(buffer, sizeof(buffer), 'd', interval.max));
+
+ TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(may_jump(debug,
+ &(struct ebpf_insn){
+ .code = (BPF_JMP | EBPF_JSGT | BPF_K),
+ .dst_reg = reg,
+ }, interval.max),
+ false,
+ "r%hhu s> %s is impossible", reg,
+ format_value(buffer, sizeof(buffer), 'd', interval.max));
+
+ return TEST_SUCCESS;
+}
+
+/* Check interval of the register interpreted as unsigned. */
+static int
+check_unsigned_interval(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug,
+ uint8_t reg, struct unsigned_interval interval)
+{
+ char buffer[VALUE_FORMAT_BUFFER_SIZE];
+
+ TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(may_jump(debug,
+ &(struct ebpf_insn){
+ .code = (BPF_JMP | EBPF_JLT | BPF_K),
+ .dst_reg = reg,
+ }, interval.min),
+ false,
+ "r%hhu u< %s is impossible", reg,
+ format_value(buffer, sizeof(buffer), 'x', interval.min));
+
+ TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(may_jump(debug,
+ &(struct ebpf_insn){
+ .code = (BPF_JMP | BPF_JEQ | BPF_K),
+ .dst_reg = reg,
+ }, interval.min),
+ true,
+ "r%hhu == %s is possible", reg,
+ format_value(buffer, sizeof(buffer), 'x', interval.min));
+
+ TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(may_jump(debug,
+ &(struct ebpf_insn){
+ .code = (BPF_JMP | BPF_JEQ | BPF_K),
+ .dst_reg = reg,
+ }, interval.max),
+ true,
+ "r%hhu == %s is possible", reg,
+ format_value(buffer, sizeof(buffer), 'x', interval.max));
+
+ TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(may_jump(debug,
+ &(struct ebpf_insn){
+ .code = (BPF_JMP | BPF_JGT | BPF_K),
+ .dst_reg = reg,
+ }, interval.max),
+ false,
+ "r%hhu u> %s is impossible", reg,
+ format_value(buffer, sizeof(buffer), 'x', interval.max));
+
+ return TEST_SUCCESS;
+}
+
+/* Check domain of the register interpreted as value. */
+static int
+check_domain_impl(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug, uint8_t reg,
+ const struct domain *domain)
+{
+ TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(
+ check_signed_interval(debug, reg, domain->s),
+ "signed interval check");
+
+ TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(
+ check_unsigned_interval(debug, reg, domain->u),
+ "unsigned interval check");
+
+ return TEST_SUCCESS;
+}
+
+/* Check domain of the register and format the values in case of an error. */
+static int
+check_domain(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug, uint8_t reg,
+ const struct domain *domain)
+{
+ char buffer[REGISTER_FORMAT_BUFFER_SIZE];
+
+ const int rc = check_domain_impl(debug, reg, domain);
+
+ if (rc != TEST_SUCCESS) {
+ TEST_LOG_LINE(WARNING, "\tExpected: r%hhu = %s", reg,
+ format_domain(buffer, sizeof(buffer), domain));
+
+ TEST_LOG_LINE(WARNING, "\tFound: r%hhu = %s", reg,
+ format_register(debug, buffer, sizeof(buffer), reg));
+ }
+
+ return rc;
+}
+
+
+/* GENERATING TEST PROGRAM */
+
+static bool
+fits_in_imm32(int64_t value)
+{
+ return value >= INT32_MIN && value <= INT32_MAX;
+}
+
+/* Load constant into the register. */
+static void
+load_constant(struct ebpf_insn **ins, uint8_t reg, int64_t value)
+{
+ if (fits_in_imm32(value)) {
+ *(*ins)++ = (struct ebpf_insn){
+ .code = (EBPF_ALU64 | EBPF_MOV | BPF_K),
+ .dst_reg = reg,
+ .imm = (int32_t)value,
+ };
+ } else {
+ /* Load imm64 into tmp_reg using wide load, lower bits first... */
+ *(*ins)++ = (struct ebpf_insn){
+ .code = (BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | EBPF_DW),
+ .dst_reg = reg,
+ .imm = (uint32_t)value,
+ };
+ /* ... then higher bits. */
+ *(*ins)++ = (struct ebpf_insn){
+ .imm = (uint32_t)(value >> 32),
+ };
+ }
+}
+
+/*
+ * Compare specified register to value and jump.
+ *
+ * Jump offset is not filled and should be patched in by the caller.
+ */
+static void
+compare_and_jump(struct ebpf_insn **ins, uint8_t op, uint8_t reg,
+ int64_t value, uint8_t tmp_reg)
+{
+ if (fits_in_imm32(value)) {
+ /* Jump on specified condition between reg and immediate. */
+ *(*ins)++ = (struct ebpf_insn){
+ .code = (BPF_JMP | op | BPF_K),
+ .dst_reg = reg,
+ .imm = (int32_t)value,
+ };
+ } else {
+ /* Load value into tmp_reg. */
+ load_constant(ins, tmp_reg, value);
+
+ /* Jump on specified condition between reg and tmp_reg. */
+ *(*ins)++ = (struct ebpf_insn){
+ .code = (BPF_JMP | op | BPF_X),
+ .dst_reg = reg,
+ .src_reg = tmp_reg,
+ };
+ }
+}
+
+/*
+ * Prepare register to be in the specified domain.
+ *
+ * Unless singleton, load unknown value into it and clamp it with conditional jumps.
+ * (Jump offsets are not filled and should be patched in by the caller.)
+ */
+static void
+prepare_domain(struct ebpf_insn **ins, uint8_t reg,
+ const struct domain *domain, uint8_t base_reg, int *service_cell_count,
+ uint8_t tmp_reg)
+{
+ if (domain_is_singleton(domain)) {
+ /* Don't need any uncertainty for a singleton. */
+ load_constant(ins, reg, domain->s.min);
+ return;
+ }
+
+ /* Load value from memory area into the register. */
+ *(*ins)++ = (struct ebpf_insn){
+ .code = (BPF_LDX | EBPF_DW | BPF_MEM),
+ .dst_reg = reg,
+ .src_reg = base_reg,
+ .off = sizeof(uint64_t) * (*service_cell_count)++,
+ };
+
+ /*
+ * Use both signed and unsigned conditions, even if redundant.
+ * It makes it more robust if conditional jump verification itself
+ * contains bugs like not updating the other type of interval.
+ * Jump instructions themselves can be tested separately to catch
+ * these bugs, this preparation phase is not a test for them.
+ */
+ if (domain->u.min > unknown.u.min)
+ compare_and_jump(ins, EBPF_JLT, reg, domain->u.min, tmp_reg);
+ if (domain->u.max < unknown.u.max)
+ compare_and_jump(ins, BPF_JGT, reg, domain->u.max, tmp_reg);
+ if (domain->s.min > unknown.s.min)
+ compare_and_jump(ins, EBPF_JSLT, reg, domain->s.min, tmp_reg);
+ if (domain->s.max < unknown.s.max)
+ compare_and_jump(ins, EBPF_JSGT, reg, domain->s.max, tmp_reg);
+}
+
+static void
+fill_verify_instruction_defaults(struct verify_instruction_param *prm)
+{
+
+ if (BPF_CLASS(prm->tested_instruction.code) != BPF_JMP)
+ prm->jump.is_unreachable = true;
+
+ RTE_VERIFY(!prm->pre.is_unreachable);
+ if (prm->post.is_unreachable) {
+ RTE_VERIFY(!prm->post.dst.is_defined);
+ RTE_VERIFY(!prm->post.src.is_defined);
+ } else {
+ if (!prm->post.dst.is_defined)
+ prm->post.dst = prm->pre.dst;
+ if (!prm->post.src.is_defined)
+ prm->post.src = prm->pre.src;
+ }
+
+ if (prm->jump.is_unreachable) {
+ RTE_VERIFY(!prm->jump.dst.is_defined);
+ RTE_VERIFY(!prm->jump.src.is_defined);
+ } else {
+ if (!prm->jump.dst.is_defined)
+ prm->jump.dst = prm->pre.dst;
+ if (!prm->jump.src.is_defined)
+ prm->jump.src = prm->pre.src;
+ }
+}
+
+/* Generate program for the tested instruction and domains from the context.
+ *
+ * Return number of instructions.
+ *
+ * Destination and source registers in tested_instruction should not be specified,
+ * they are filled in by the function as long as domains for them are specified.
+ * Jump offset should not be specified, it is filled in by the function.
+ *
+ * If `pre.dst` or `pre.src` domain is not defined, corresponding register
+ * is not prepared.
+ *
+ * For non-jump instructions `jump.is_unreachable` is always set automatically.
+ *
+ * If any of the post or jump domains are not defined, they are copied from src
+ * unless corresponding branch is unreachable.
+ *
+ * Memory area size is automatically expanded to have enough space for loading
+ * unknown dst and src register values, thus testing sizes less than 16 bytes is
+ * not guaranteed.
+ *
+ * Limitations:
+ * - Support for jump instructions is incomplete (e.g. exit, ja).
+ * - Wide instructions are not supported yet.
+ */
+static uint32_t
+generate_program(struct verify_instruction_context *ctx, struct ebpf_insn *ins)
+{
+ struct ebpf_insn *const ins_buf = ins;
+ /* Number of double words used for service purposes. */
+ int service_cell_count = 0;
+
+ /* Make sure we actually support provided instruction. */
+ switch (BPF_CLASS(ctx->prm.tested_instruction.code)) {
+ case BPF_LD:
+ /* Wide instructions are not supported yet. */
+ RTE_VERIFY(!rte_bpf_insn_is_wide(&ctx->prm.tested_instruction));
+ break;
+ }
+
+ fill_verify_instruction_defaults(&ctx->prm);
+
+ /* Allocate registers, base_reg is received as program argument. */
+ ctx->base_reg = EBPF_REG_1;
+ ctx->dst_reg = (ctx->prm.pre.dst.is_defined || ctx->prm.post.dst.is_defined ||
+ ctx->prm.jump.dst.is_defined) ? EBPF_REG_2 : NO_REGISTER;
+ ctx->src_reg = (ctx->prm.pre.src.is_defined || ctx->prm.post.src.is_defined ||
+ ctx->prm.jump.src.is_defined) ? EBPF_REG_3 : NO_REGISTER;
+ ctx->tmp_reg = EBPF_REG_4;
+
+ /* Clear r0 to make it eligible as a return value. */
+ load_constant(&ins, EBPF_REG_0, 0);
+
+ /* Fill dst register in the instruction if defined anywhere, prepare if needed. */
+ if (ctx->dst_reg != NO_REGISTER) {
+ RTE_VERIFY(ctx->prm.tested_instruction.dst_reg == 0);
+ ctx->prm.tested_instruction.dst_reg = ctx->dst_reg;
+
+ if (ctx->prm.pre.dst.is_defined)
+ prepare_domain(&ins, ctx->dst_reg, &ctx->prm.pre.dst,
+ ctx->base_reg, &service_cell_count, ctx->tmp_reg);
+ else
+ TEST_LOG_LINE(DEBUG, "Not preparing undefined r%hhu", ctx->dst_reg);
+ }
+
+ /* Fill src register in the instruction if defined anywhere, prepare if needed. */
+ if (ctx->src_reg != NO_REGISTER) {
+ RTE_VERIFY(ctx->prm.tested_instruction.src_reg == 0);
+ ctx->prm.tested_instruction.src_reg = ctx->src_reg;
+
+ if (ctx->prm.pre.src.is_defined)
+ prepare_domain(&ins, ctx->src_reg, &ctx->prm.pre.src,
+ ctx->base_reg, &service_cell_count, ctx->tmp_reg);
+ else
+ TEST_LOG_LINE(DEBUG, "Not preparing undefined r%hhu", ctx->src_reg);
+ }
+
+ /* Automatically increase area size if needed. */
+ ctx->prm.area_size = RTE_MAX(ctx->prm.area_size, service_cell_count * sizeof(uint64_t));
+
+ /* Issue tested instruction. */
+ ctx->pre.program_counter = ins - ins_buf;
+ *ins++ = ctx->prm.tested_instruction;
+
+ /* Issue post instruction (for setting post breakpoint). */
+ ctx->post.program_counter = ins - ins_buf;
+ load_constant(&ins, EBPF_REG_0, 1);
+
+ /* Issue jump branch for the jump instruction, even if dynamically unreachable. */
+ if (BPF_CLASS(ctx->prm.tested_instruction.code) != BPF_JMP)
+ ctx->jump.program_counter = NO_PROGRAM_COUNTER;
+ else {
+ /* Finish previous branch by issuing exit. */
+ *ins++ = (struct ebpf_insn){ .code = (BPF_JMP | EBPF_EXIT) };
+
+ /* Issue jump target instruction (for setting jump breakpoint). */
+ ctx->jump.program_counter = ins - ins_buf;
+ load_constant(&ins, EBPF_REG_0, 2);
+
+ /* Patch jump in tested jump instruction. */
+ RTE_VERIFY(ins_buf[ctx->pre.program_counter].off == 0);
+ ins_buf[ctx->pre.program_counter].off =
+ ctx->jump.program_counter - ctx->post.program_counter;
+ }
+
+ /* Issue exit instruction. */
+ const uint32_t exit_pc = ins - ins_buf;
+ *ins++ = (struct ebpf_insn){ .code = (BPF_JMP | EBPF_EXIT) };
+
+ /* Patch all jumps to point to exit. */
+ for (uint32_t pc = 0; pc != ctx->pre.program_counter; ++pc)
+ if (BPF_CLASS(ins_buf[pc].code) == BPF_JMP) {
+ RTE_ASSERT(ins_buf[pc].off == 0);
+ ins_buf[pc].off = exit_pc - (pc + 1);
+ }
+
+ const uint32_t nb_ins = ins - ins_buf;
+ return nb_ins;
+}
+
+
+/* VERIFICATION OF AN ARBITRARY INSTRUCTION */
+
+/* Invoked when invalid state is detected. */
+static int
+invalid_state_cb(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug, void *void_ctx)
+{
+ struct verify_instruction_context *const ctx = void_ctx;
+
+ ++ctx->invalid_state_count;
+
+ TEST_LOG_LINE(WARNING,
+ "Invalid state detected at pc %u",
+ rte_bpf_validate_debug_get_pc(debug));
+
+ RTE_SET_USED(debug);
+
+ return TEST_SUCCESS;
+}
+
+static int
+point_callback(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug, const struct verify_instruction_context *ctx,
+ struct point_context *point_ctx, const struct state *state)
+{
+ TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(point_ctx->hit_count, 0, "not called before");
+
+ const uint32_t pc = rte_bpf_validate_debug_get_pc(debug);
+ TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(pc, point_ctx->program_counter,
+ "Expected program counter: %" PRIu32 ", found: %" PRIu32,
+ point_ctx->program_counter, pc);
+
+ if (ctx->dst_reg != NO_REGISTER) {
+ format_register(debug, point_ctx->formatted_dst,
+ sizeof(point_ctx->formatted_dst), ctx->dst_reg);
+
+ if (state->dst.is_defined) {
+ TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(
+ check_domain(debug, ctx->dst_reg, &state->dst),
+ "dst domain check");
+ TEST_LOG_LINE(DEBUG, "Successfully checked r%hhu.", ctx->dst_reg);
+ } else
+ TEST_LOG_LINE(DEBUG, "Not checking undefined r%hhu.", ctx->dst_reg);
+ }
+
+ if (ctx->src_reg != NO_REGISTER) {
+ format_register(debug, point_ctx->formatted_src,
+ sizeof(point_ctx->formatted_src), ctx->src_reg);
+
+ if (state->src.is_defined) {
+ TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(
+ check_domain(debug, ctx->src_reg, &state->src),
+ "src domain check");
+ TEST_LOG_LINE(DEBUG, "Successfully checked r%hhu.", ctx->src_reg);
+ } else
+ TEST_LOG_LINE(DEBUG, "Not checking undefined r%hhu.", ctx->src_reg);
+ }
+
+ ++point_ctx->hit_count;
+
+ return TEST_SUCCESS;
+}
+
+/*
+ * Invoked before the tested instruction and checks pre-conditions.
+ *
+ * Also formats registers in the pre state for postmortem, if needed.
+ */
+static int
+pre_callback(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug, void *void_ctx)
+{
+ struct verify_instruction_context *const ctx = void_ctx;
+
+ TEST_LOG_LINE(DEBUG, "Pre callback invoked.");
+
+ TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(
+ point_callback(debug, ctx, &ctx->pre, &ctx->prm.pre),
+ "pre-state check");
+
+ return TEST_SUCCESS;
+}
+
+/* Invoked after the tested instruction and checks post-conditions. */
+static int
+post_callback(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug, void *void_ctx)
+{
+ struct verify_instruction_context *const ctx = void_ctx;
+
+ TEST_LOG_LINE(DEBUG, "Post callback invoked.");
+
+ TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(
+ point_callback(debug, ctx, &ctx->post, &ctx->prm.post),
+ "post-state check");
+
+ return TEST_SUCCESS;
+}
+
+/* Invoked after the tested instruction jumped and checks jump post-conditions. */
+static int
+jump_callback(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug, void *void_ctx)
+{
+ struct verify_instruction_context *const ctx = void_ctx;
+
+ TEST_LOG_LINE(DEBUG, "Jump callback invoked.");
+
+ TEST_ASSERT_SUCCESS(
+ point_callback(debug, ctx, &ctx->jump, &ctx->prm.jump),
+ "jump-state check");
+
+ return TEST_SUCCESS;
+}
+
+static int
+debug_validation(struct verify_instruction_context *ctx, const struct ebpf_insn *ins,
+ uint32_t nb_ins)
+{
+ struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *const debug = rte_bpf_validate_debug_create();
+ TEST_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(debug, "validate debug create error %d", rte_errno);
+
+ const struct rte_bpf_prm_ex prm = {
+ .sz = sizeof(struct rte_bpf_prm_ex),
+ .origin = RTE_BPF_ORIGIN_RAW,
+ .raw.ins = ins,
+ .raw.nb_ins = nb_ins,
+ .prog_arg[0] = {
+ .type = RTE_BPF_ARG_PTR,
+ .size = ctx->prm.area_size,
+ },
+ .nb_prog_arg = 1,
+ .debug = debug,
+ };
+
+ /* Catch invalid states. */
+ TEST_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(rte_bpf_validate_debug_catch(debug,
+ RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_EVENT_INVALID_STATE,
+ &(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug_callback){
+ .fn = invalid_state_cb,
+ .ctx = ctx,
+ }), "add catchpoint error %d", rte_errno);
+
+ /* Break on pre test instruction. */
+ TEST_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(rte_bpf_validate_debug_break(debug, ctx->pre.program_counter,
+ &(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug_callback){
+ .fn = pre_callback,
+ .ctx = ctx,
+ }), "add pre breakpoint error %d", rte_errno);
+
+ /* Break on post test instruction. */
+ TEST_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(rte_bpf_validate_debug_break(debug, ctx->post.program_counter,
+ &(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug_callback){
+ .fn = post_callback,
+ .ctx = ctx,
+ }), "add post breakpoint error %d", rte_errno);
+
+ if (ctx->jump.program_counter != NO_PROGRAM_COUNTER)
+ /* Break on jump test instruction. */
+ TEST_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(rte_bpf_validate_debug_break(debug, ctx->jump.program_counter,
+ &(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug_callback){
+ .fn = jump_callback,
+ .ctx = ctx,
+ }), "add jump breakpoint error %d", rte_errno);
+
+ struct rte_bpf *const bpf = rte_bpf_load_ex(&prm);
+ const int validation_errno = rte_errno;
+
+ rte_bpf_destroy(bpf);
+ rte_bpf_validate_debug_destroy(debug);
+
+ TEST_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(bpf, "validation error %d", validation_errno);
+
+ TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(ctx->pre.hit_count, !ctx->prm.pre.is_unreachable,
+ "pre hit_count = %d", ctx->pre.hit_count);
+ TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(ctx->post.hit_count, !ctx->prm.post.is_unreachable,
+ "post hit_count = %d", ctx->post.hit_count);
+ TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(ctx->jump.hit_count, !ctx->prm.jump.is_unreachable,
+ "jump hit_count = %d", ctx->jump.hit_count);
+
+ return TEST_SUCCESS;
+}
+
+/* Dump whole program to log. */
+static void
+log_program_dump(const struct ebpf_insn *ins, uint32_t nb_ins, uint32_t pre_pc)
+{
+ char hexadecimal[DISASSEMBLY_FORMAT_BUFFER_SIZE];
+ char disassembly[DISASSEMBLY_FORMAT_BUFFER_SIZE];
+
+ TEST_LOG_LINE(NOTICE, "\tTested program:");
+ for (uint32_t pc = 0; pc != nb_ins; ++pc) {
+ rte_bpf_format(hexadecimal, sizeof(hexadecimal), &ins[pc], pc,
+ RTE_BPF_FORMAT_FLAG_HEXADECIMAL |
+ RTE_BPF_FORMAT_FLAG_NEVER_WIDE);
+ rte_bpf_format(disassembly, sizeof(disassembly), &ins[pc], pc,
+ RTE_BPF_FORMAT_FLAG_DISASSEMBLY |
+ RTE_BPF_FORMAT_FLAG_ABSOLUTE_JUMPS);
+ TEST_LOG_LINE(NOTICE, "\t%5u: \t%s \t%s%s",
+ pc, hexadecimal, disassembly,
+ pc != pre_pc ? "" : " ; tested instruction");
+
+ if (!rte_bpf_insn_is_wide(&ins[pc]))
+ continue;
+
+ ++pc;
+
+ rte_bpf_format(hexadecimal, sizeof(hexadecimal), &ins[pc], pc,
+ RTE_BPF_FORMAT_FLAG_HEXADECIMAL |
+ RTE_BPF_FORMAT_FLAG_NEVER_WIDE);
+ TEST_LOG_LINE(NOTICE, "\t%6s \t%s", "", hexadecimal);
+ }
+}
+
+static void
+log_formatted_registers(const char *heading, const struct verify_instruction_context *ctx,
+ const struct point_context *point_ctx)
+{
+ char register_name[8];
+
+ TEST_LOG_LINE(NOTICE, "\t%s", heading);
+ if (ctx->dst_reg != NO_REGISTER) {
+ snprintf(register_name, sizeof(register_name), "r%hhu", ctx->dst_reg);
+ TEST_LOG_LINE(NOTICE, "\t%5s: \t%s", register_name, point_ctx->formatted_dst);
+ }
+ if (ctx->src_reg != NO_REGISTER) {
+ snprintf(register_name, sizeof(register_name), "r%hhu", ctx->src_reg);
+ TEST_LOG_LINE(NOTICE, "\t%5s: \t%s", register_name, point_ctx->formatted_src);
+ }
+}
+
+/*
+ * Verify instruction validation behaviour described by prm.
+ *
+ * Generate the program containing specified instruction on the code path with
+ * specified register pre-domains and verify specified register post-domains.
+ *
+ * See comment to `generate_program` for more requirements and limitations.
+ */
+static int
+verify_instruction(struct verify_instruction_param prm)
+{
+ struct verify_instruction_context ctx = {
+ .prm = prm,
+ };
+ struct ebpf_insn ins_buf[64];
+
+ const uint32_t nb_ins = generate_program(&ctx, ins_buf);
+ RTE_ASSERT(nb_ins <= RTE_DIM(ins_buf));
+
+ const int rc = debug_validation(&ctx, ins_buf, nb_ins);
+
+ /* Log more data at DEBUG level on success, NOTICE on failure. */
+ if (rte_log_can_log(RTE_LOGTYPE_TEST_BPF_VALIDATE, RTE_LOG_DEBUG) ||
+ rc != TEST_SUCCESS) {
+ log_program_dump(ins_buf, nb_ins, ctx.pre.program_counter);
+ log_formatted_registers("Pre-state:", &ctx, &ctx.pre);
+ log_formatted_registers("Post-state:", &ctx, &ctx.post);
+ if (ctx.jump.program_counter != NO_PROGRAM_COUNTER)
+ log_formatted_registers("Jump-state:", &ctx, &ctx.jump);
+ }
+
+ return rc;
+}
+
+
+/* TESTS FOR SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS */
+
+/* 64-bit addition of immediate to a range. */
+static int
+test_alu64_add_k(void)
+{
+ return verify_instruction((struct verify_instruction_param){
+ .tested_instruction = {
+ .code = (EBPF_ALU64 | BPF_ADD | BPF_K),
+ .imm = 17,
+ },
+ .pre.dst = make_signed_domain(11, 29),
+ .post.dst = make_signed_domain(11 + 17, 29 + 17),
+ });
+}
+
+REGISTER_FAST_TEST(bpf_validate_alu64_add_k_autotest, NOHUGE_OK, ASAN_OK,
+ test_alu64_add_k);
+
+/* Jump if greater than immediate. */
+static int
+test_jmp64_jeq_k(void)
+{
+ return verify_instruction((struct verify_instruction_param){
+ .tested_instruction = {
+ .code = (BPF_JMP | BPF_JGT | BPF_K),
+ .imm = 0,
+ },
+ .pre.dst = make_unsigned_domain(0, 1),
+ .post.dst = make_singleton_domain(0),
+ .jump.dst = make_singleton_domain(1),
+ });
+}
+
+REGISTER_FAST_TEST(bpf_validate_jmp64_jeq_k_autotest, NOHUGE_OK, ASAN_OK,
+ test_jmp64_jeq_k);
--
2.43.0
^ permalink raw reply related
* [PATCH v4 07/24] bpf/validate: fix BPF_LDX | EBPF_DW signed range
From: Marat Khalili @ 2026-06-23 14:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Konstantin Ananyev; +Cc: dev, stable
In-Reply-To: <20260623143215.95318-1-marat.khalili@huawei.com>
Function `eval_max_load` copied signed range from unsigned regardless of
the mask (operation width) producing on 64-bit load nonsensical signed
range 0..-1 that breaks invariant min <= max relied upon in multiple
places (e.g. signed overflow detection in `eval_mul` only checks `s.min`
to make sure the range is non-negative and so on).
E.g. consider the following program with the current validation code:
Tested program:
0: mov r0, #0x0
1: mov r3, #0x0
2: add r3, r1
3: ldxdw r2, [r3 + 16] ; tested instruction
4: mov r0, #0x1
5: exit
Pre-state:
r2: %undefined
r3: %buffer<24> + 0
Post-state:
r2: 0..-1 INTERSECT 0..UINT64_MAX (!)
r3: %buffer<24> + 0
Part before INTERSECT represents signed range, part after INTERSECT
represents unsigned range. Unsigned range is correctly set to full range
0..UINT64_MAX, but signed range copied from it becomes 0..-1.
Fix loading logic to only copy unsigned to signed for non-full mask.
The test will be added in subsequent commits since it depends on other
fixes.
Fixes: 8021917293d0 ("bpf: add extra validation for input BPF program")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org
Signed-off-by: Marat Khalili <marat.khalili@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com>
---
lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c | 9 +++++----
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c b/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
index 5609bfcd5c16..6a2d5974e036 100644
--- a/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
+++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
@@ -1220,10 +1220,11 @@ eval_max_load(struct bpf_reg_val *rv, uint64_t mask)
/* full 64-bit load */
if (mask == UINT64_MAX)
eval_smax_bound(rv, mask);
-
- /* zero-extend load */
- rv->s.min = rv->u.min;
- rv->s.max = rv->u.max;
+ else {
+ /* zero-extend load */
+ rv->s.min = rv->u.min;
+ rv->s.max = rv->u.max;
+ }
}
--
2.43.0
^ permalink raw reply related
* [PATCH v4 06/24] bpf/validate: fix BPF_ADD of pointer to a scalar
From: Marat Khalili @ 2026-06-23 14:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Konstantin Ananyev; +Cc: dev, stable
In-Reply-To: <20260623143215.95318-1-marat.khalili@huawei.com>
Function `eval_add` preserved type of the destination register even when
a pointer was added to it. If it contained scalar, it remained a scalar,
and if it contained pointer, it remained a pointer.
E.g. consider the following program with the current validation code:
Tested program:
0: mov r0, #0x0
1: mov r3, #0x0
2: add r3, r1 ; tested instruction
3: ldxdw r2, [r3 + 16]
4: mov r0, #0x1
5: exit
After the tested instruction validator considers r3 to be scalar and
fails validation with the error:
BPF: evaluate(): destination is not a pointer at pc: 3
However, this code is valid as long as program argument points to a
valid memory area at least 24 bytes long which we read at offset 16.
When adding pointer to a scalar set type of the result to pointer of
the same type. When adding pointer to a pointer set type of the result
to scalar and value to unknown.
The test will be added in subsequent commits since it depends on other
fixes.
Fixes: 8021917293d0 ("bpf: add extra validation for input BPF program")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org
Signed-off-by: Marat Khalili <marat.khalili@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com>
---
lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c | 12 ++++++++++++
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c b/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
index f3f462920a3d..5609bfcd5c16 100644
--- a/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
+++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
@@ -647,8 +647,20 @@ eval_apply_mask(struct bpf_reg_val *rv, uint64_t mask)
static void
eval_add(struct bpf_reg_val *rd, const struct bpf_reg_val *rs, uint64_t msk)
{
+ struct bpf_reg_val rs_buf;
struct bpf_reg_val rv;
+ if (RTE_BPF_ARG_PTR_TYPE(rs->v.type) != 0) {
+ if (RTE_BPF_ARG_PTR_TYPE(rd->v.type) != 0) {
+ /* treat sum of pointers as sum of two unknown scalars */
+ eval_fill_max_bound(&rs_buf, msk);
+ *rd = rs_buf;
+ rs = &rs_buf;
+ } else
+ /* scalar + pointer is a pointer of the same type */
+ rd->v = rs->v;
+ }
+
rv.u.min = (rd->u.min + rs->u.min) & msk;
rv.u.max = (rd->u.max + rs->u.max) & msk;
rv.s.min = ((uint64_t)rd->s.min + (uint64_t)rs->s.min) & msk;
--
2.43.0
^ permalink raw reply related
* [PATCH v4 05/24] bpf/validate: introduce debugging interface
From: Marat Khalili @ 2026-06-23 14:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Konstantin Ananyev; +Cc: dev
In-Reply-To: <20260623143215.95318-1-marat.khalili@huawei.com>
Introduce debugging interface for BPF validator. New API lets one
observe evaluation of the validated BPF program, including step
evaluation, setting break- and catchpoints, inspecting possible jumps
and memory accesses in current state, as well as formatting current
state elements for the user. It can be used to build both automated
tests and interactive validation debuggers without tight coupling to a
specific validator implementation.
Signed-off-by: Marat Khalili <marat.khalili@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com>
---
doc/guides/prog_guide/bpf_lib.rst | 31 ++
doc/guides/rel_notes/release_26_07.rst | 10 +-
lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c | 448 ++++++++++++++++-
lib/bpf/bpf_validate.h | 60 +++
lib/bpf/bpf_validate_debug.c | 659 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
lib/bpf/bpf_validate_debug.h | 86 ++++
lib/bpf/bpf_value_set.c | 403 +++++++++++++++
lib/bpf/bpf_value_set.h | 126 +++++
lib/bpf/meson.build | 9 +-
lib/bpf/rte_bpf.h | 4 +
lib/bpf/rte_bpf_validate_debug.h | 375 ++++++++++++++
11 files changed, 2205 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 lib/bpf/bpf_validate.h
create mode 100644 lib/bpf/bpf_validate_debug.c
create mode 100644 lib/bpf/bpf_validate_debug.h
create mode 100644 lib/bpf/bpf_value_set.c
create mode 100644 lib/bpf/bpf_value_set.h
create mode 100644 lib/bpf/rte_bpf_validate_debug.h
diff --git a/doc/guides/prog_guide/bpf_lib.rst b/doc/guides/prog_guide/bpf_lib.rst
index ed07a9f9a2c0..b5e52c097cb1 100644
--- a/doc/guides/prog_guide/bpf_lib.rst
+++ b/doc/guides/prog_guide/bpf_lib.rst
@@ -116,6 +116,37 @@ For example, ``(BPF_IND | BPF_W | BPF_LD)`` means:
and ``R1-R5`` were scratched.
+Validation Debugging
+--------------------
+
+The DPDK BPF library includes a validation debugging API designed primarily for
+writing comprehensive unit tests for the eBPF verifier. It allows developers to
+introspect the abstract interpretation process step-by-step to guarantee that
+the verifier correctly models the semantics of eBPF instructions.
+
+The validation debugging API operates using a gdb-like approach:
+
+1. **Initialization:** Create a debug session using
+ ``rte_bpf_validate_debug_create()`` and pass it to the loader via the
+ ``debug`` field in ``struct rte_bpf_prm_ex``.
+2. **Breakpoints and Catchpoints:** Before loading, use
+ ``rte_bpf_validate_debug_break()`` or ``rte_bpf_validate_debug_catch()``
+ to register callback functions that trigger at specific instruction indices
+ (program counters) or upon specific validation events.
+3. **State Introspection:** Within the callbacks, the API provides functions
+ like ``rte_bpf_validate_debug_can_access()``,
+ ``rte_bpf_validate_debug_may_jump()``, and various formatting functions
+ to safely inspect the verifier's internal belief about register bounds
+ and memory states at that specific execution point.
+
+When adding a test for a new eBPF instruction or fixing a validator bug,
+developers should utilize the harness provided in
+``app/test/test_bpf_validate.c``. This harness encapsulates the debugging API,
+allowing you to define the expected abstract domains (signed and unsigned
+intervals) for registers before and after a tested instruction, generating
+the necessary eBPF bytecode and breakpoints automatically.
+
+
Not currently supported eBPF features
-------------------------------------
diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_26_07.rst b/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_26_07.rst
index 0b1cac3e0d2f..8471966a4992 100644
--- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_26_07.rst
+++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_26_07.rst
@@ -164,12 +164,20 @@ New Features
for installing already loaded BPF programs as port callbacks
(as opposed to loading them directly from ELF files).
+* **Added BPF validation debugging API.**
+
+ * Introduced a new set of APIs (prefixed with ``rte_bpf_validate_debug_``) to
+ introspect the BPF validator. This provides a mechanism to set breakpoints
+ or catchpoints during validation and inspect the verifier's internal state
+ (such as tracked register bounds). This API is crucial primarily for writing
+ comprehensive tests for the validator, but also serves as a foundation for a
+ future interactive eBPF validation debugger.
+
* **Added AI review helpers.**
Added AGENTS.md file for AI review
and supporting scripts to review patches and documentation.
-
Removed Items
-------------
diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c b/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
index 362d00c77095..f3f462920a3d 100644
--- a/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
+++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
@@ -9,9 +9,13 @@
#include <stdint.h>
#include <inttypes.h>
+#include <rte_bpf_validate_debug.h>
#include <rte_common.h>
#include "bpf_impl.h"
+#include "bpf_validate.h"
+#include "bpf_validate_debug.h"
+#include "bpf_value_set.h"
#define BPF_ARG_PTR_STACK RTE_BPF_ARG_RESERVED
@@ -92,6 +96,7 @@ struct bpf_verifier {
struct inst_node *evin;
struct evst_pool evst_sr_pool; /* for evst save/restore */
struct evst_pool evst_tp_pool; /* for evst track/prune */
+ struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug;
};
struct bpf_ins_check {
@@ -118,6 +123,409 @@ struct bpf_ins_check {
/* For LD_IND R6 is an implicit CTX register. */
#define IND_SRC_REGS (WRT_REGS ^ 1 << EBPF_REG_6)
+/*
+ * Debugging internal interface and helpers.
+ */
+
+static bool
+reg_val_range_is_valid(const struct bpf_reg_val *rv)
+{
+ if (rv->v.type == RTE_BPF_ARG_UNDEF)
+ return true;
+
+ if (rv->s.min > rv->s.max)
+ return false;
+
+ if (rv->u.min > rv->u.max)
+ return false;
+
+ /* If one of the ranges does not change sign, the other should match. */
+ if (rv->s.min >= 0 || rv->s.max < 0 ||
+ rv->u.min > INT64_MAX || rv->u.max <= INT64_MAX)
+ return rv->u.min == (uint64_t)rv->s.min &&
+ rv->u.max == (uint64_t)rv->s.max;
+
+ return true;
+}
+
+int
+__rte_bpf_validate_state_is_valid(const struct bpf_verifier *verifier)
+{
+ const struct bpf_eval_state *const st = verifier->evst;
+
+ for (int reg = 0; reg != RTE_DIM(st->rv); ++reg)
+ if (!reg_val_range_is_valid(st->rv + reg))
+ return false;
+
+ for (int var = 0; var != RTE_DIM(st->sv); ++var)
+ if (!reg_val_range_is_valid(st->sv + var))
+ return false;
+
+ return true;
+}
+
+int
+__rte_bpf_validate_can_access(const struct bpf_verifier *verifier,
+ const struct ebpf_insn *access, uint64_t off64)
+{
+ const struct bpf_eval_state *const st = verifier->evst;
+ const struct bpf_reg_val *rv;
+ /* Set of accessed byte offsets relative to memory area base. */
+ struct value_set access_set;
+ uint32_t opsz;
+
+ switch (BPF_CLASS(access->code)) {
+ case BPF_LDX:
+ rv = &st->rv[access->src_reg];
+ if (rv->v.type == BPF_ARG_PTR_STACK)
+ /* Not supporting stack access queries yet. */
+ return -ENOTSUP;
+ break;
+ case BPF_ST:
+ rv = &st->rv[access->dst_reg];
+ break;
+ case BPF_STX:
+ rv = &st->rv[access->dst_reg];
+ if (st->rv[access->src_reg].v.type == RTE_BPF_ARG_UNDEF)
+ return false;
+ break;
+ default:
+ return -ENOTSUP;
+ }
+
+ if (!RTE_BPF_ARG_PTR_TYPE(rv->v.type) || rv->v.size == 0)
+ return false;
+
+ access_set = value_set_from_pair(rv->s.min, rv->s.max, rv->u.min, rv->u.max);
+ value_set_translate(&access_set, off64);
+ opsz = bpf_size(BPF_SIZE(access->code));
+ value_set_add_contiguous(&access_set, 0, opsz - 1);
+
+ return value_set_is_covered_by_contiguous(&access_set, 0, rv->v.size - 1);
+}
+
+/* Return true if instruction `code` is supported by `may_jump`. */
+static bool
+may_jump_code_is_supported(uint8_t code)
+{
+ if (BPF_CLASS(code) != BPF_JMP)
+ return false;
+
+ switch (BPF_OP(code)) {
+ case BPF_JEQ:
+ case BPF_JGT:
+ case BPF_JGE:
+ case EBPF_JNE:
+ case EBPF_JSGT:
+ case EBPF_JSGE:
+ case EBPF_JLT:
+ case EBPF_JLE:
+ case EBPF_JSLT:
+ case EBPF_JSLE:
+ return true;
+ default:
+ return false;
+ }
+}
+
+/* Return true if instruction `code` corresponds to a signed comparison. */
+static bool
+may_jump_code_is_signed(uint8_t code)
+{
+ switch (BPF_OP(code)) {
+ case EBPF_JSGT:
+ case EBPF_JSGE:
+ case EBPF_JSLT:
+ case EBPF_JSLE:
+ return true;
+ default:
+ return false;
+ }
+}
+
+/* Return true the specified jump condition _may_ be true. */
+static bool
+may_jump(uint8_t code, const struct value_set *origin,
+ const struct value_set *dst_set, const struct value_set *src_set)
+{
+ switch (BPF_OP(code)) {
+ case BPF_JEQ:
+ return value_sets_intersect(dst_set, src_set);
+ case EBPF_JNE:
+ return !(value_set_is_singleton(dst_set) &&
+ value_sets_equal(dst_set, src_set));
+ case BPF_JGT:
+ case EBPF_JSGT:
+ return !value_sets_based_less_or_equal(origin, dst_set, src_set);
+ case BPF_JGE:
+ case EBPF_JSGE:
+ return !value_sets_based_less(origin, dst_set, src_set);
+ case EBPF_JLT:
+ case EBPF_JSLT:
+ return !value_sets_based_less_or_equal(origin, src_set, dst_set);
+ case EBPF_JSLE:
+ case EBPF_JLE:
+ return !value_sets_based_less(origin, src_set, dst_set);
+ }
+ /* may_jump_code_is_supported should have caught this */
+ RTE_ASSERT(false);
+ return false;
+}
+
+/* Return instruction code for jump condition complement (negated result). */
+static uint8_t
+may_jump_code_complement(uint8_t code)
+{
+ switch (BPF_OP(code)) {
+ case BPF_JEQ:
+ case EBPF_JNE:
+ return code ^ BPF_JEQ ^ EBPF_JNE;
+ case BPF_JGT:
+ case EBPF_JLE:
+ return code ^ BPF_JGT ^ EBPF_JLE;
+ case BPF_JGE:
+ case EBPF_JLT:
+ return code ^ BPF_JGE ^ EBPF_JLT;
+ case EBPF_JSGT:
+ case EBPF_JSLE:
+ return code ^ EBPF_JSGT ^ EBPF_JSLE;
+ case EBPF_JSGE:
+ case EBPF_JSLT:
+ return code ^ EBPF_JSGE ^ EBPF_JSLT;
+ }
+ /* may_jump_code_is_supported should have caught this */
+ RTE_ASSERT(false);
+ return 0;
+}
+
+int
+__rte_bpf_validate_may_jump(const struct bpf_verifier *verifier,
+ const struct ebpf_insn *jump, uint64_t imm64)
+{
+ const struct bpf_eval_state *const st = verifier->evst;
+ const struct bpf_reg_val *rd, *rs;
+ struct value_set dst_set, src_set, origin;
+ int result;
+
+ if (!may_jump_code_is_supported(jump->code))
+ return -ENOTSUP;
+
+ rd = &st->rv[jump->dst_reg];
+ dst_set = (rd->v.type == RTE_BPF_ARG_UNDEF) ? value_set_full :
+ value_set_from_pair(rd->s.min, rd->s.max, rd->u.min, rd->u.max);
+
+ rs = BPF_SRC(jump->code) == BPF_X ? &st->rv[jump->src_reg] : NULL;
+ src_set = rs == NULL ? value_set_singleton((int64_t)jump->imm) :
+ rs->v.type == RTE_BPF_ARG_UNDEF ? value_set_full :
+ value_set_from_pair(rs->s.min, rs->s.max, rs->u.min, rs->u.max);
+
+ value_set_translate(&src_set, imm64);
+
+ if (RTE_BPF_ARG_PTR_TYPE(rd->v.type) &&
+ (rs != NULL && RTE_BPF_ARG_PTR_TYPE(rs->v.type)) &&
+ rd->v.size == rs->v.size) {
+ /*
+ * Both sides are pointers with the same memory area size.
+ * Until tracking of memory areas is implemented we will consider them
+ * pointing to the same memory area just because of this.
+ * In this case our value sets represent offsets from the memory area base,
+ * which is some unknown distance from the scalar zero (NULL).
+ * We know however that the memory area cannot cross zero address.
+ * Thus range of origin relative to memory base starts with 1 byte gap
+ * after the memory area and ends just before it.
+ */
+ origin = value_set_contiguous(rd->v.size + 1, -1);
+ } else {
+ /* Scalar value of a pointer depends on the memory area base address. */
+ if (RTE_BPF_ARG_PTR_TYPE(rd->v.type))
+ value_set_add_contiguous(&dst_set, 1, UINT64_MAX - rd->v.size);
+ if (rs != NULL && RTE_BPF_ARG_PTR_TYPE(rs->v.type))
+ value_set_add_contiguous(&dst_set, 1, UINT64_MAX - rs->v.size);
+ origin = value_set_singleton(0);
+ }
+
+ if (may_jump_code_is_signed(jump->code))
+ /* Shift origin to the minimal value for signed comparisons. */
+ value_set_translate(&origin, INT64_MIN);
+
+ result = 0;
+
+ if (may_jump(jump->code, &origin, &dst_set, &src_set))
+ result |= RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_MAY_BE_TRUE;
+
+ if (may_jump(may_jump_code_complement(jump->code), &origin, &dst_set, &src_set))
+ result |= RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_MAY_BE_FALSE;
+
+ return result;
+}
+
+/* Like snprintf, but advances (except for overflow) ptr and reduces szleft. */
+__rte_format_printf(3, 4)
+static int
+buf_printf(char **ptr, ssize_t *szleft, const char *format, ...)
+{
+ va_list args;
+ int rc;
+
+ va_start(args, format);
+ rc = vsnprintf(*ptr, RTE_MAX(0, *szleft), format, args);
+ va_end(args);
+
+ if (rc > 0) {
+ *szleft -= rc;
+ if (*szleft > 0)
+ *ptr += rc;
+ }
+
+ return rc;
+}
+
+static int
+format_memory_area(char **ptr, ssize_t *szleft, const struct bpf_reg_val *rv)
+{
+ switch (rv->v.type) {
+ case RTE_BPF_ARG_RAW:
+ return 0;
+ case RTE_BPF_ARG_PTR:
+ return buf_printf(ptr, szleft, "%%buffer<%zu> + ",
+ (size_t)rv->v.size);
+ case RTE_BPF_ARG_PTR_MBUF:
+ return buf_printf(ptr, szleft, "%%mbuf<%zu, %zu> + ",
+ (size_t)rv->v.size, (size_t)rv->v.buf_size);
+ case BPF_ARG_PTR_STACK:
+ return buf_printf(ptr, szleft, "%%stack + ");
+ default:
+ return -ENOTSUP;
+ }
+}
+
+/* Format min..max interval using validate-debug API and updating ptr and szleft. */
+static int
+buf_print_interval(char **ptr, ssize_t *szleft, char format, uint64_t min, uint64_t max)
+{
+ int rc;
+
+ rc = rte_bpf_validate_debug_format_interval(*ptr, RTE_MAX(0, *szleft),
+ format, min, max);
+
+ if (rc > 0) {
+ *szleft -= rc;
+ if (*szleft > 0)
+ *ptr += rc;
+ }
+
+ return rc;
+}
+
+/* Format rv roughly as "<signed-range> INTERSECT <unsigned-hex-range>" */
+static int
+format_register_range(char **ptr, ssize_t *szleft, const struct bpf_reg_val *rv)
+{
+ int rc;
+ uint64_t expected_unsigned_min, expected_unsigned_max;
+ const bool valid = reg_val_range_is_valid(rv);
+
+ /* Print signed unless trivial. */
+ if (!valid || rv->s.min != INT64_MIN || rv->s.max != INT64_MAX) {
+ rc = buf_print_interval(ptr, szleft, 'd', rv->s.min, rv->s.max);
+ if (rc < 0)
+ return rc;
+
+ if (valid) {
+ /* Skip printing unsigned if it has expected values. */
+ if (rv->s.min >= 0 || rv->s.max < 0) {
+ expected_unsigned_min = (uint64_t)rv->s.min;
+ expected_unsigned_max = (uint64_t)rv->s.max;
+ } else {
+ expected_unsigned_min = 0;
+ expected_unsigned_max = UINT64_MAX;
+ }
+
+ if (rv->u.min == expected_unsigned_min &&
+ rv->u.max == expected_unsigned_max)
+ return 0;
+ }
+
+ rc = buf_printf(ptr, szleft, " INTERSECT ");
+ if (rc < 0)
+ return rc;
+ }
+
+ rc = buf_print_interval(ptr, szleft, 'x', rv->u.min, rv->u.max);
+ if (rc < 0)
+ return rc;
+
+ if (!valid) {
+ rc = buf_printf(ptr, szleft, " (!)");
+ if (rc < 0)
+ return rc;
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+/* Format rv roughly as "<memory-object> + <offsets-range>" */
+static int
+format_reg_val(char *buffer, size_t bufsz, const struct bpf_reg_val *rv)
+{
+ char *ptr = buffer;
+ ssize_t szleft = bufsz;
+ int rc;
+
+ if (rv->v.type == RTE_BPF_ARG_UNDEF)
+ return snprintf(buffer, bufsz, "%%undefined");
+
+ /* Print data area info, if any. */
+ rc = format_memory_area(&ptr, &szleft, rv);
+ if (rc < 0)
+ return rc;
+
+ rc = format_register_range(&ptr, &szleft, rv);
+ if (rc < 0)
+ return rc;
+
+ /* At least one snprintf was called and added terminating zero. */
+ RTE_ASSERT(szleft < (ssize_t)bufsz);
+ --szleft;
+
+ return bufsz - szleft;
+}
+
+int
+__rte_bpf_validate_format_register_info(const struct bpf_verifier *verifier,
+ char *buffer, size_t bufsz, uint8_t reg)
+{
+ if (reg >= EBPF_REG_NUM)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ return format_reg_val(buffer, bufsz, &verifier->evst->rv[reg]);
+}
+
+int
+__rte_bpf_validate_format_frame_info(const struct bpf_verifier *verifier,
+ char *buffer, size_t bufsz, int32_t offset)
+{
+ if (offset % sizeof(uint64_t) != 0)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ if (offset >= 0 || offset < -MAX_BPF_STACK_SIZE)
+ return -ERANGE;
+
+ offset = (MAX_BPF_STACK_SIZE + offset) / sizeof(uint64_t);
+
+ return format_reg_val(buffer, bufsz, &verifier->evst->sv[offset]);
+}
+
+int32_t
+__rte_bpf_validate_get_frame_size(const struct bpf_verifier *verifier)
+{
+ if (verifier->stack_sz > INT32_MAX)
+ return -ERANGE;
+
+ return verifier->stack_sz;
+}
+
+
/*
* check and evaluate functions for particular instruction types.
*/
@@ -2405,7 +2813,9 @@ evaluate(struct bpf_verifier *bvf)
const char *err;
const struct ebpf_insn *ins;
struct inst_node *next, *node;
- int rc = 0;
+ int prev_nb_edge; /* branching number of the previous instruction */
+ int rc, debug_rc;
+ struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *const debug = bvf->prm->debug;
struct {
uint32_t nb_eval;
@@ -2439,11 +2849,15 @@ evaluate(struct bpf_verifier *bvf)
ins = bvf->prm->raw.ins;
node = bvf->in;
next = node;
+ prev_nb_edge = 1;
memset(&stats, 0, sizeof(stats));
- while (node != NULL) {
+ rc = __rte_bpf_validate_debug_evaluate_start(debug, bvf, bvf->prm);
+ if (rc < 0)
+ return rc;
+ while (node != NULL) {
/*
* current node evaluation, make sure we evaluate
* each node only once.
@@ -2464,6 +2878,13 @@ evaluate(struct bpf_verifier *bvf)
}
if (ins_chk[op].eval != NULL) {
+ rc = __rte_bpf_validate_debug_evaluate_step(
+ debug, idx, prev_nb_edge > 1 ?
+ RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_EVENT_BRANCH_ENTER :
+ RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_EVENT_STEP);
+ if (rc < 0)
+ break;
+
err = ins_chk[op].eval(bvf, ins + idx);
stats.nb_eval++;
if (err != NULL) {
@@ -2499,10 +2920,17 @@ evaluate(struct bpf_verifier *bvf)
*/
if (node->nb_edge > 1 && prune_eval_state(bvf, node,
next) == 0) {
+ rc = __rte_bpf_validate_debug_evaluate_step(
+ debug, get_node_idx(bvf, next),
+ RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_EVENT_BRANCH_PRUNE);
+ if (rc < 0)
+ break;
+
next = NULL;
stats.nb_prune++;
} else {
next->prev_node = node;
+ prev_nb_edge = node->nb_edge;
node = next;
}
} else {
@@ -2511,8 +2939,18 @@ evaluate(struct bpf_verifier *bvf)
* mark it's @start state as safe for future references,
* and proceed with parent.
*/
+
+ if (prev_nb_edge != 0) {
+ rc = __rte_bpf_validate_debug_evaluate_step(
+ debug, get_node_idx(bvf, node) + 1,
+ RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_EVENT_BRANCH_RETURN);
+ if (rc < 0)
+ break;
+ }
+
node->cur_edge = 0;
save_safe_eval_state(bvf, node);
+ prev_nb_edge = 0;
node = node->prev_node;
/* first node will not have prev, signalling finish */
@@ -2532,7 +2970,11 @@ evaluate(struct bpf_verifier *bvf)
__func__, bvf, rc,
stats.nb_eval, stats.nb_prune, stats.nb_save, stats.nb_restore);
- return rc;
+ debug_rc = __rte_bpf_validate_debug_evaluate_finish(debug, rc);
+ rc = debug_rc < 0 ? debug_rc : rc;
+
+ /* Caller does not expect positive values. */
+ return RTE_MIN(0, rc);
}
static bool
diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.h b/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.h
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..9912f4fd5c4f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.h
@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
+ * Copyright(c) 2025 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
+ */
+
+#ifndef _BPF_VALIDATE_H_
+#define _BPF_VALIDATE_H_
+
+/**
+ * @file bpf_validate.h
+ *
+ * Internal-use headers for eBPF validation observability.
+ */
+
+#include <bpf_def.h>
+
+#ifdef __cplusplus
+extern "C" {
+#endif
+
+struct bpf_verifier;
+
+/*
+ * Return 1 if the verifier passes internal self-check,
+ * 0 if it fails, or a negative error code.
+ */
+int
+__rte_bpf_validate_state_is_valid(const struct bpf_verifier *verifier);
+
+/*
+ * Return 1 if the specified access instruction is valid,
+ * 0 if it is invalid, or a negative error code.
+ */
+int
+__rte_bpf_validate_can_access(const struct bpf_verifier *verifier,
+ const struct ebpf_insn *access, uint64_t off64);
+
+/* Get possible truth values of the specified jump condition. */
+int
+__rte_bpf_validate_may_jump(const struct bpf_verifier *verifier,
+ const struct ebpf_insn *jump, uint64_t imm64);
+
+/* Format known information about the register for the user. */
+int
+__rte_bpf_validate_format_register_info(const struct bpf_verifier *verifier,
+ char *buffer, size_t bufsz, uint8_t reg);
+
+/* Format known information about the frame location for the user. */
+int
+__rte_bpf_validate_format_frame_info(const struct bpf_verifier *verifier,
+ char *buffer, size_t bufsz, int32_t offset);
+
+/* Return frame size. */
+int32_t
+__rte_bpf_validate_get_frame_size(const struct bpf_verifier *verifier);
+
+#ifdef __cplusplus
+}
+#endif
+
+#endif /* _BPF_VALIDATE_H_ */
diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_validate_debug.c b/lib/bpf/bpf_validate_debug.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..5d18804a74bc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_validate_debug.c
@@ -0,0 +1,659 @@
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
+ * Copyright(c) 2025 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
+ */
+
+#include "bpf_impl.h"
+#include "bpf_validate.h"
+#include "bpf_validate_debug.h"
+
+#include <eal_export.h>
+#include <rte_bpf_validate_debug.h>
+#include <rte_errno.h>
+#include <rte_per_lcore.h>
+
+#include <errno.h>
+#include <stddef.h>
+#include <stdlib.h>
+
+#ifndef LIST_FOREACH_SAFE
+/* We need this macro which neither Linux nor EAL for Linux include yet. */
+#define LIST_FOREACH_SAFE(var, head, field, tvar) \
+ for ((var) = LIST_FIRST((head)); \
+ (var) && ((tvar) = LIST_NEXT((var), field), 1); \
+ (var) = (tvar))
+#endif
+
+#define EVENT_ARRAY_LENGTH RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_EVENT_END
+
+struct rte_bpf_validate_debug_point {
+ LIST_ENTRY(rte_bpf_validate_debug_point) list;
+ struct rte_bpf_validate_debug_callback callback;
+ uint32_t pc;
+};
+
+LIST_HEAD(point_list, rte_bpf_validate_debug_point);
+
+struct rte_bpf_validate_debug {
+ /* Accessible immediately after object creation. */
+ struct point_list pending_breakpoints;
+ struct point_list *catchpoint_lists;
+ struct rte_bpf_validate_debug_callback step_callback;
+
+ /* Accessible only after evaluate start. */
+ const struct bpf_verifier *verifier;
+ const struct rte_bpf_prm_ex *bpf_prm;
+ struct point_list *breakpoint_lists;
+ struct rte_bpf_validate_debug_point *last_point;
+ uint32_t pc;
+ /* Evaluate stage (only tracking `evaluate` part at the moment). */
+ bool evaluate_started;
+ bool evaluate_finished;
+ int evaluate_result; /* Only valid if `evaluate_finished` is true. */
+};
+
+/* Point lists functions. */
+
+/* Destroy all points in the list. */
+static void
+point_list_destroy(struct point_list *point_list)
+{
+ struct rte_bpf_validate_debug_point *point, *next;
+
+ LIST_FOREACH_SAFE(point, point_list, list, next)
+ rte_bpf_validate_debug_point_destroy(point);
+
+ RTE_ASSERT(LIST_EMPTY(point_list));
+}
+
+/* Destroy all points in all lists in the array and free the array. */
+static void
+point_lists_destroy(struct point_list *point_lists, uint32_t length)
+{
+ if (point_lists == NULL)
+ return;
+
+ for (uint32_t pli = 0; pli != length; ++pli)
+ point_list_destroy(&point_lists[pli]);
+
+ free(point_lists);
+}
+
+/* Dynamically allocate and initialize an array of point lists. */
+static struct point_list *
+point_lists_create(uint32_t length)
+{
+ /* Allocate at least one element to avoid calloc(0, ...) shenanigans. */
+ struct point_list *const array =
+ calloc(RTE_MAX(1u, length), sizeof(*array));
+ if (array == NULL)
+ return NULL;
+
+ for (uint32_t pli = 0; pli != length; ++pli)
+ LIST_INIT(&array[pli]);
+
+ return array;
+}
+
+/* Move point to a different list. */
+static inline void
+point_move(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug_point *point,
+ struct point_list *destination)
+{
+ LIST_REMOVE(point, list);
+ LIST_INSERT_HEAD(destination, point, list);
+}
+
+/* Move all points between lists (the order is inverted). */
+static void
+points_move(struct point_list *source, struct point_list *destination)
+{
+ struct rte_bpf_validate_debug_point *point, *next;
+
+ LIST_FOREACH_SAFE(point, source, list, next)
+ point_move(point, destination);
+ RTE_ASSERT(LIST_EMPTY(source));
+}
+
+/* Pending breakpoints. */
+
+/* Return true if all pending breakpoints have pc less than nb_ins. */
+static bool
+debug_pending_breakpoints_are_valid(const struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug,
+ uint32_t nb_ins)
+{
+ const struct rte_bpf_validate_debug_point *breakpoint;
+
+ LIST_FOREACH(breakpoint, &debug->pending_breakpoints, list)
+ if (breakpoint->pc >= nb_ins)
+ return false;
+
+ return true;
+}
+
+/* Move all pending breakpoints to correct per-pc lists. */
+static void
+debug_pending_breakpoints_restore(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug)
+{
+ struct rte_bpf_validate_debug_point *breakpoint, *next;
+ struct point_list breakpoints;
+
+ /* Invert the list first to preserve point order when we move them. */
+ LIST_INIT(&breakpoints);
+ points_move(&debug->pending_breakpoints, &breakpoints);
+
+ LIST_FOREACH_SAFE(breakpoint, &breakpoints, list, next)
+ point_move(breakpoint, &debug->breakpoint_lists[breakpoint->pc]);
+ RTE_ASSERT(LIST_EMPTY(&breakpoints));
+}
+
+/* Move all breakpoints from per-pc lists to the pending one. */
+static void
+debug_pending_breakpoints_save(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug)
+{
+ struct point_list breakpoints;
+
+ LIST_INIT(&breakpoints);
+ for (uint32_t pc = 0; pc != debug->bpf_prm->raw.nb_ins; ++pc)
+ points_move(&debug->breakpoint_lists[pc], &breakpoints);
+
+ /* Invert the list to restore point order after we moved them. */
+ RTE_ASSERT(LIST_EMPTY(&debug->pending_breakpoints));
+ points_move(&breakpoints, &debug->pending_breakpoints);
+}
+
+/* Debug instance creation and destruction. */
+
+RTE_EXPORT_EXPERIMENTAL_SYMBOL(rte_bpf_validate_debug_destroy, 26.07)
+void
+rte_bpf_validate_debug_destroy(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug)
+{
+ if (debug == NULL)
+ return;
+
+ /* Cannot destroy the instance during validation. */
+ RTE_ASSERT(!debug->evaluate_started);
+
+ point_lists_destroy(debug->catchpoint_lists, EVENT_ARRAY_LENGTH);
+ point_list_destroy(&debug->pending_breakpoints);
+ free(debug);
+}
+
+RTE_EXPORT_EXPERIMENTAL_SYMBOL(rte_bpf_validate_debug_create, 26.07)
+struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *
+rte_bpf_validate_debug_create(void)
+{
+ struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *const debug = calloc(1, sizeof(*debug));
+ if (debug == NULL) {
+ rte_errno = ENOMEM;
+ return NULL;
+ }
+
+ LIST_INIT(&debug->pending_breakpoints);
+
+ debug->catchpoint_lists = point_lists_create(EVENT_ARRAY_LENGTH);
+ if (debug->catchpoint_lists == NULL) {
+ free(debug);
+ rte_errno = ENOMEM;
+ return NULL;
+ }
+
+ return debug;
+}
+
+/* Managing callbacks. */
+
+/* Call back the user function with correct arguments for a point. */
+static inline int
+debug_point_call_back(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug,
+ struct rte_bpf_validate_debug_point *point)
+{
+ debug->last_point = point;
+ return point->callback.fn(debug, point->callback.ctx);
+}
+
+/* Call back all points in point_list. */
+static int
+debug_points_call_back(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug,
+ const struct point_list *point_list)
+{
+ struct rte_bpf_validate_debug_point *point, *next;
+ int rc = 0;
+
+ LIST_FOREACH_SAFE(point, point_list, list, next)
+ rc = rc < 0 ? rc : debug_point_call_back(debug, point);
+
+ return rc;
+}
+
+/* Call back all catchpoints for the specified event. */
+static int
+debug_send_event(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug, debug_event_t event)
+{
+ return debug_points_call_back(debug, &debug->catchpoint_lists[event]);
+}
+
+/* Create new point and insert it into the specified list. */
+static struct rte_bpf_validate_debug_point *
+point_list_insert(struct point_list *point_list,
+ const struct rte_bpf_validate_debug_callback *callback, uint32_t pc)
+{
+ struct rte_bpf_validate_debug_point *const point =
+ malloc(sizeof(*point));
+ if (point == NULL) {
+ rte_errno = ENOMEM;
+ return NULL;
+ }
+
+ LIST_INSERT_HEAD(point_list, point, list);
+ point->callback = *callback;
+ point->pc = pc;
+ return point;
+}
+
+RTE_EXPORT_EXPERIMENTAL_SYMBOL(rte_bpf_validate_debug_break, 26.07)
+struct rte_bpf_validate_debug_point *
+rte_bpf_validate_debug_break(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug, uint32_t pc,
+ const struct rte_bpf_validate_debug_callback *callback)
+{
+ if (debug == NULL || callback == NULL || callback->fn == NULL) {
+ rte_errno = EINVAL;
+ return NULL;
+ }
+
+ if (!debug->evaluate_started)
+ return point_list_insert(&debug->pending_breakpoints,
+ callback, pc);
+
+ if (pc >= debug->bpf_prm->raw.nb_ins) {
+ rte_errno = ENOENT;
+ return NULL;
+ }
+
+ return point_list_insert(&debug->breakpoint_lists[pc], callback, pc);
+}
+
+RTE_EXPORT_EXPERIMENTAL_SYMBOL(rte_bpf_validate_debug_catch, 26.07)
+struct rte_bpf_validate_debug_point *
+rte_bpf_validate_debug_catch(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug,
+ debug_event_t event, const struct rte_bpf_validate_debug_callback *callback)
+{
+ if (debug == NULL || callback == NULL || callback->fn == NULL ||
+ event < 0 || event >= RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_EVENT_END) {
+ rte_errno = EINVAL;
+ return NULL;
+ }
+
+ return point_list_insert(&debug->catchpoint_lists[event], callback, 0);
+}
+
+RTE_EXPORT_EXPERIMENTAL_SYMBOL(rte_bpf_validate_debug_point_destroy, 26.07)
+void
+rte_bpf_validate_debug_point_destroy(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug_point *point)
+{
+ if (point == NULL)
+ return;
+
+ LIST_REMOVE(point, list);
+ free(point);
+}
+
+/* Querying execution state. */
+
+RTE_EXPORT_EXPERIMENTAL_SYMBOL(rte_bpf_validate_debug_get_bpf_param, 26.07)
+const struct rte_bpf_prm_ex *
+rte_bpf_validate_debug_get_bpf_param(const struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug)
+{
+ if (debug == NULL) {
+ rte_errno = EINVAL;
+ return NULL;
+ }
+
+ if (!debug->evaluate_started) {
+ rte_errno = ECHILD;
+ return NULL;
+ }
+
+ return debug->bpf_prm;
+}
+
+RTE_EXPORT_EXPERIMENTAL_SYMBOL(rte_bpf_validate_debug_get_ins, 26.07)
+int
+rte_bpf_validate_debug_get_ins(const struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug,
+ const struct ebpf_insn **ins, uint32_t *nb_ins)
+{
+ if (debug == NULL)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ if (!debug->evaluate_started)
+ return -ECHILD;
+
+ if (debug->bpf_prm->origin != RTE_BPF_ORIGIN_RAW)
+ return -ENOTSUP;
+
+ *ins = debug->bpf_prm->raw.ins;
+ *nb_ins = debug->bpf_prm->raw.nb_ins;
+ return 0;
+}
+
+RTE_EXPORT_EXPERIMENTAL_SYMBOL(rte_bpf_validate_debug_get_last_point, 26.07)
+struct rte_bpf_validate_debug_point *
+rte_bpf_validate_debug_get_last_point(const struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug)
+{
+ if (debug == NULL) {
+ rte_errno = EINVAL;
+ return NULL;
+ }
+
+ return debug->last_point;
+}
+
+RTE_EXPORT_EXPERIMENTAL_SYMBOL(rte_bpf_validate_debug_get_pc, 26.07)
+uint32_t
+rte_bpf_validate_debug_get_pc(const struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug)
+{
+ if (debug == NULL || !debug->evaluate_started)
+ return UINT32_MAX;
+
+ return debug->pc;
+}
+
+RTE_EXPORT_EXPERIMENTAL_SYMBOL(rte_bpf_validate_debug_get_validation_result, 26.07)
+int
+rte_bpf_validate_debug_get_validation_result(const struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug,
+ int *result)
+{
+ if (debug == NULL)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ if (!debug->evaluate_finished)
+ return -EAGAIN;
+
+ *result = debug->evaluate_result;
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+/* Querying VM state. */
+
+RTE_EXPORT_EXPERIMENTAL_SYMBOL(rte_bpf_validate_debug_can_access, 26.07)
+int
+rte_bpf_validate_debug_can_access(const struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug,
+ const struct ebpf_insn *access, uint64_t off64)
+{
+ if (debug == NULL || access == NULL)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ if (!debug->evaluate_started)
+ return -ECHILD;
+
+ return __rte_bpf_validate_can_access(debug->verifier, access, off64);
+}
+
+RTE_EXPORT_EXPERIMENTAL_SYMBOL(rte_bpf_validate_debug_may_jump, 26.07)
+int
+rte_bpf_validate_debug_may_jump(const struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug,
+ const struct ebpf_insn *jump, uint64_t imm64)
+{
+ if (debug == NULL || jump == NULL)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ if (!debug->evaluate_started)
+ return -ECHILD;
+
+ return __rte_bpf_validate_may_jump(debug->verifier, jump, imm64);
+}
+
+/* Formatting VM state for user. */
+
+RTE_EXPORT_EXPERIMENTAL_SYMBOL(rte_bpf_validate_debug_format_register_info, 26.07)
+int
+rte_bpf_validate_debug_format_register_info(const struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug,
+ char *buffer, size_t bufsz, uint8_t reg)
+{
+ if (debug == NULL)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ if (!debug->evaluate_started)
+ return -ECHILD;
+
+ return __rte_bpf_validate_format_register_info(debug->verifier, buffer,
+ bufsz, reg);
+}
+
+RTE_EXPORT_EXPERIMENTAL_SYMBOL(rte_bpf_validate_debug_format_frame_info, 26.07)
+int
+rte_bpf_validate_debug_format_frame_info(const struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug,
+ char *buffer, size_t bufsz, int32_t offset)
+{
+ if (debug == NULL)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ if (!debug->evaluate_started)
+ return -ECHILD;
+
+ return __rte_bpf_validate_format_frame_info(debug->verifier, buffer,
+ bufsz, offset);
+}
+
+RTE_EXPORT_EXPERIMENTAL_SYMBOL(rte_bpf_validate_debug_get_frame_size, 26.07)
+int32_t
+rte_bpf_validate_debug_get_frame_size(const struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug)
+{
+ if (debug == NULL)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ if (!debug->evaluate_started)
+ return -ECHILD;
+
+ return __rte_bpf_validate_get_frame_size(debug->verifier);
+}
+
+/* Courtesy formatting functions for user-supplied values. */
+
+RTE_EXPORT_EXPERIMENTAL_SYMBOL(rte_bpf_validate_debug_format_value, 26.07)
+int
+rte_bpf_validate_debug_format_value(char *buffer, size_t bufsz, char format,
+ uint64_t value)
+{
+ static const struct {
+ uint64_t value;
+ const char *name;
+ } constants[] = {
+ { .value = INT64_MIN, .name = "INT64_MIN" },
+ { .value = INT32_MIN, .name = "INT32_MIN" },
+ { .value = INT16_MIN, .name = "INT16_MIN" },
+ { .value = INT8_MIN, .name = "INT8_MIN" },
+ { .value = INT8_MAX, .name = "INT8_MAX" },
+ { .value = UINT8_MAX, .name = "UINT8_MAX" },
+ { .value = INT16_MAX, .name = "INT16_MAX" },
+ { .value = UINT16_MAX, .name = "UINT16_MAX" },
+ { .value = INT32_MAX, .name = "INT32_MAX" },
+ { .value = UINT32_MAX, .name = "UINT32_MAX" },
+ { .value = INT64_MAX, .name = "INT64_MAX" },
+ /* UINT64_MAX omitted on purpose, it looks better as -1 */
+ };
+
+ switch (format) {
+ case 'd':
+ for (int ci = 0; ci != RTE_DIM(constants); ++ci)
+ if (constants[ci].value == value)
+ return snprintf(buffer, bufsz, "%s", constants[ci].name);
+ /*
+ * Special case numbers close to int32_t or int64_t range ends,
+ * since they are hard to recognize in decimal otherwise.
+ */
+ if (value - INT64_MIN < 1000000)
+ return snprintf(buffer, bufsz, "INT64_MIN+%" PRId64,
+ value - INT64_MIN);
+ if (INT64_MAX - value < 1000000)
+ return snprintf(buffer, bufsz, "INT64_MAX-%" PRId64,
+ INT64_MAX - value);
+ if (value - INT32_MIN < 1000)
+ return snprintf(buffer, bufsz, "INT32_MIN+%" PRId64,
+ value - INT32_MIN);
+ if (INT32_MAX - value < 1000)
+ return snprintf(buffer, bufsz, "INT32_MAX-%" PRId64,
+ INT32_MAX - value);
+ return snprintf(buffer, bufsz, "%" PRId64, value);
+ case 'x':
+ /* Special case only the common case of UINT64_MAX. */
+ if (value == UINT64_MAX)
+ return snprintf(buffer, bufsz, "%s", "UINT64_MAX");
+ return snprintf(buffer, bufsz, "%#" PRIx64, value);
+ default:
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+}
+
+RTE_EXPORT_EXPERIMENTAL_SYMBOL(rte_bpf_validate_debug_format_interval, 26.07)
+int
+rte_bpf_validate_debug_format_interval(char *buffer, size_t bufsz, char format,
+ uint64_t min, uint64_t max)
+{
+ char min_buffer[32], max_buffer[32];
+ int rc;
+
+ if (min == max)
+ return rte_bpf_validate_debug_format_value(buffer, bufsz, format, min);
+
+ rc = rte_bpf_validate_debug_format_value(min_buffer, sizeof(min_buffer), format, min);
+ if (rc < 0)
+ return rc;
+
+ rc = rte_bpf_validate_debug_format_value(max_buffer, sizeof(max_buffer), format, max);
+ if (rc < 0)
+ return rc;
+
+ return snprintf(buffer, bufsz, "%s..%s", min_buffer, max_buffer);
+}
+
+/* Evaluation start and finish. */
+
+/* Free all resources associated with current evaluation. */
+static void
+debug_evaluate_close(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug)
+{
+ RTE_ASSERT(debug->evaluate_started);
+ debug_pending_breakpoints_save(debug);
+ free(debug->breakpoint_lists);
+ debug->breakpoint_lists = NULL;
+ debug->evaluate_started = false;
+}
+
+int
+__rte_bpf_validate_debug_evaluate_start(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug,
+ const struct bpf_verifier *verifier, const struct rte_bpf_prm_ex *bpf_prm)
+{
+ if (debug == NULL)
+ return 0;
+
+ if (verifier == NULL || bpf_prm == NULL ||
+ bpf_prm->origin != RTE_BPF_ORIGIN_RAW)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ if (debug->evaluate_started) {
+ RTE_BPF_LOG_FUNC_LINE(ERR, "already started");
+ return -EEXIST;
+ }
+
+ if (!debug_pending_breakpoints_are_valid(debug, bpf_prm->raw.nb_ins))
+ return -ENOENT;
+
+ debug->verifier = verifier;
+ debug->bpf_prm = bpf_prm;
+ debug->breakpoint_lists = point_lists_create(bpf_prm->raw.nb_ins);
+ if (debug->breakpoint_lists == NULL)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+ debug_pending_breakpoints_restore(debug);
+ debug->last_point = NULL;
+ debug->pc = 0;
+ debug->evaluate_started = true;
+
+ const int rc = debug_send_event(debug,
+ RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_EVENT_VALIDATION_START);
+ if (rc < 0) {
+ debug_evaluate_close(debug);
+ return rc;
+ }
+
+ RTE_BPF_LOG_FUNC_LINE(DEBUG, "evaluate started");
+ return 0;
+}
+
+int
+__rte_bpf_validate_debug_evaluate_step(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug,
+ uint32_t pc, debug_event_t event)
+{
+ int rc;
+
+ if (debug == NULL)
+ return 0;
+
+ if (!debug->evaluate_started) {
+ RTE_BPF_LOG_FUNC_LINE(ERR, "not started");
+ return -ECHILD;
+ }
+
+ if (pc > debug->bpf_prm->raw.nb_ins || event < 0 ||
+ event >= RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_EVENT_END)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ debug->pc = pc;
+
+ rc = __rte_bpf_validate_state_is_valid(debug->verifier);
+ if (rc == 0)
+ rc = debug_send_event(debug,
+ RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_EVENT_INVALID_STATE);
+
+ if (event != RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_EVENT_STEP)
+ rc = rc < 0 ? rc : debug_send_event(debug, event);
+
+ if (event == RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_EVENT_STEP ||
+ event == RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_EVENT_BRANCH_ENTER)
+ /* Stepping into a real instruction to execute. */
+ rc = rc < 0 ? rc : debug_points_call_back(debug,
+ &debug->breakpoint_lists[pc]);
+
+ rc = rc < 0 ? rc : debug_send_event(debug,
+ RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_EVENT_STEP);
+
+ return rc;
+}
+
+int
+__rte_bpf_validate_debug_evaluate_finish(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug,
+ int result)
+{
+ int rc = 0;
+ uint32_t pc;
+ debug_event_t event;
+
+ if (debug == NULL)
+ return 0;
+
+ if (!debug->evaluate_started) {
+ RTE_BPF_LOG_FUNC_LINE(ERR, "not started");
+ return -ECHILD;
+ }
+
+ debug->evaluate_finished = true;
+ debug->evaluate_result = result;
+
+ if (result != -ECANCELED) {
+ if (result < 0) {
+ /* Last known pc is the place we failed. */
+ pc = debug->pc;
+ event = RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_EVENT_VALIDATION_FAILURE;
+ } else {
+ /* Show program end, not particular instruction. */
+ pc = debug->bpf_prm->raw.nb_ins;
+ event = RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_EVENT_VALIDATION_SUCCESS;
+ }
+
+ rc = __rte_bpf_validate_debug_evaluate_step(debug, pc, event);
+ }
+
+ debug_evaluate_close(debug);
+
+ return rc;
+}
diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_validate_debug.h b/lib/bpf/bpf_validate_debug.h
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..a91f3e9c48b2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_validate_debug.h
@@ -0,0 +1,86 @@
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
+ * Copyright(c) 2025 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
+ */
+
+#ifndef _BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_H_
+#define _BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_H_
+
+/**
+ * @file bpf_validate_debug.h
+ *
+ * Internal-use headers for eBPF validation debug notifications.
+ */
+
+#include "rte_bpf_validate_debug.h"
+
+#include <stdint.h>
+
+#ifdef __cplusplus
+extern "C" {
+#endif
+
+struct rte_bpf_prm_ex;
+struct rte_bpf_validate_debug;
+struct bpf_verifier;
+
+/* Type alias for validation event enum. */
+typedef enum rte_bpf_validate_debug_event debug_event_t;
+
+/*
+ * Signal beginning of evaluation process.
+ *
+ * Immediately return 0 if debug is NULL.
+ *
+ * @param debug
+ * Validate debug instance configured by user, can be NULL.
+ * @param verifier
+ * Opaque pointer that can be used for calling bpf_validate.h API.
+ * @param bpf_prm
+ * Parameters struct of the validated eBPF program, including code with all
+ * patches and relocations applied.
+ * @return
+ * Non-negative value on success, negative errno on failure.
+ */
+int
+__rte_bpf_validate_debug_evaluate_start(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug,
+ const struct bpf_verifier *verifier, const struct rte_bpf_prm_ex *bpf_prm);
+
+/*
+ * Signal each instruction, branch end, or evaluation end.
+ *
+ * Immediately return 0 if debug is NULL.
+ *
+ * @param debug
+ * Validate debug instance configured by user, can be NULL.
+ * @param pc
+ * Current value of the program counter, or next after last instruction.
+ * @param event
+ * Specific evaluation event if any, or RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_EVENT_STEP.
+ * @return
+ * Non-negative value: evaluation should continue;
+ * -ECANCELED: evaluation should fail without calling this API again;
+ * Other negative value: evaluation should fail signalling failure;
+ */
+int
+__rte_bpf_validate_debug_evaluate_step(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug,
+ uint32_t pc, debug_event_t event);
+
+/*
+ * Signal end of evaluation process.
+ *
+ * Immediately return 0 if debug is NULL.
+ *
+ * @param debug
+ * Validate debug instance configured by user, can be NULL.
+ * @return
+ * Non-negative value on success, negative errno on failure.
+ */
+int
+__rte_bpf_validate_debug_evaluate_finish(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug,
+ int result);
+
+#ifdef __cplusplus
+}
+#endif
+
+#endif /* _BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_H_ */
diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_value_set.c b/lib/bpf/bpf_value_set.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..86f46de66f2f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_value_set.c
@@ -0,0 +1,403 @@
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
+ * Copyright(c) 2026 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
+ */
+
+#include "bpf_value_set.h"
+
+#include <rte_debug.h>
+
+/* Helper interval operations and checks. */
+
+/* One of many possible full intervals. */
+static const struct value_set_interval canonical_full_interval = {
+ .first = 0,
+ .last = UINT64_MAX,
+};
+
+/* Translate ("shift") interval by `offset`. */
+static void
+interval_translate(struct value_set_interval *interval, uint64_t offset)
+{
+ interval->first += offset;
+ interval->last += offset;
+}
+
+/* Return true if the interval includes all possible values. */
+static bool
+interval_is_full(struct value_set_interval interval)
+{
+ return interval.last + 1 == interval.first;
+}
+
+/* Return true if the interval includes `value`. */
+static bool
+interval_contains(struct value_set_interval interval, uint64_t value)
+{
+ return value - interval.first <= interval.last - interval.first;
+}
+
+/* Return true if the interval `lhs` includes all values from `rhs`. */
+static bool
+interval_covers(struct value_set_interval lhs, struct value_set_interval rhs)
+{
+ const uint64_t offset = -lhs.first;
+ interval_translate(&lhs, offset);
+ interval_translate(&rhs, offset);
+ RTE_ASSERT(lhs.first == 0);
+
+ return lhs.last == UINT64_MAX ||
+ (lhs.last >= rhs.last && rhs.last >= rhs.first);
+}
+
+/* Return true if the interval includes step from UINT64_MAX to 0. */
+static bool
+interval_crosses_zero(struct value_set_interval interval)
+{
+ return interval.last < interval.first;
+}
+
+/* Return number of elements in a non-full elements, 0 for full interval. */
+static uint64_t
+interval_size(struct value_set_interval interval)
+{
+ return interval.last - interval.first + 1;
+}
+
+/* Return true if two intervals represent same sets of values. */
+static bool
+intervals_equal(struct value_set_interval lhs, struct value_set_interval rhs)
+{
+ return (interval_is_full(lhs) && interval_is_full(rhs)) ||
+ (lhs.first == rhs.first && lhs.last == rhs.last);
+}
+
+/* Return true if two intervals have common elements. */
+static bool
+intervals_intersect(struct value_set_interval lhs, struct value_set_interval rhs)
+{
+ return interval_contains(lhs, rhs.first) || interval_contains(rhs, lhs.first);
+}
+
+/* Return true if `rhs.first` follows `lhs.last` with some gap. Does not check other ends! */
+static bool
+intervals_follow_with_gap(struct value_set_interval lhs, struct value_set_interval rhs)
+{
+ return lhs.last != UINT64_MAX && rhs.first > lhs.last + 1;
+}
+
+/* Return true if `(l - o) < (r - o)` for all `(o in origin, l in lhs, r in rhs)`. */
+static bool
+intervals_based_less(struct value_set_interval origin, struct value_set_interval lhs,
+ struct value_set_interval rhs)
+{
+ /* Translate all intervals for the origin to start at 0. */
+ const uint64_t offset = -origin.first;
+ interval_translate(&origin, offset);
+ interval_translate(&lhs, offset);
+ interval_translate(&rhs, offset);
+ RTE_ASSERT(origin.first == 0);
+
+ return origin.last <= lhs.first &&
+ lhs.first <= lhs.last &&
+ lhs.last < rhs.first &&
+ rhs.first <= rhs.last;
+}
+
+/* Return true if `(l - o) <= (r - o)` for all `(o in origin, l in lhs, r in rhs)`. */
+static bool
+intervals_based_less_or_equal(struct value_set_interval origin, struct value_set_interval lhs,
+ struct value_set_interval rhs)
+{
+ /* Translate all intervals for the origin to start at 0. */
+ const uint64_t offset = -origin.first;
+ interval_translate(&origin, offset);
+ interval_translate(&lhs, offset);
+ interval_translate(&rhs, offset);
+ RTE_ASSERT(origin.first == 0);
+
+ /* Special cases. */
+ if (origin.last == 0 && lhs.first == 0 && lhs.last == 0)
+ return true;
+ if (origin.last == 0 && rhs.first == UINT64_MAX && rhs.last == UINT64_MAX)
+ return true;
+ if (lhs.first == lhs.last && lhs.last == rhs.first && rhs.first == rhs.last)
+ return true;
+
+ return origin.last <= lhs.first &&
+ lhs.first <= lhs.last &&
+ lhs.last <= rhs.first &&
+ rhs.first <= rhs.last;
+}
+
+/* Append interval rhs to list of intervals in lhs. */
+static void
+value_set_append(struct value_set *lhs, struct value_set_interval rhs)
+{
+ RTE_VERIFY(lhs->nb_interval < VALUE_SET_NB_INTERVAL_MAX);
+ RTE_VERIFY(lhs->nb_interval == 0 ||
+ intervals_follow_with_gap(lhs->interval[lhs->nb_interval - 1], rhs));
+ lhs->interval[lhs->nb_interval++] = rhs;
+}
+
+/*
+ * Helper operations on noncyclic value set and intervals.
+ * Noncyclic means no interval crosses zero,
+ * but in return last value set interval may touch first.
+ */
+
+static struct value_set
+noncyclic_value_set_union_interval(const struct value_set *lhs, const struct value_set_interval rhs)
+{
+ struct value_set result = {};
+ uint32_t index = 0;
+
+ RTE_ASSERT(lhs->nb_interval == 0 ||
+ !interval_crosses_zero(lhs->interval[lhs->nb_interval - 1]));
+ RTE_ASSERT(!interval_crosses_zero(rhs));
+
+ /* Append to result all lhs intervals preceding rhs. */
+ for (; index != lhs->nb_interval; ++index) {
+ const struct value_set_interval lhs_interval = lhs->interval[index];
+ if (!intervals_follow_with_gap(lhs_interval, rhs))
+ break;
+
+ value_set_append(&result, lhs_interval);
+ }
+
+ /* Appendinterval joined from rhs and all lhs intervals intersecting or touching it. */
+ struct value_set_interval joint_interval = rhs;
+ for (; index != lhs->nb_interval; ++index) {
+ const struct value_set_interval lhs_interval = lhs->interval[index];
+ if (intervals_follow_with_gap(rhs, lhs_interval))
+ break;
+
+ joint_interval.first = RTE_MIN(joint_interval.first, lhs_interval.first);
+ joint_interval.last = RTE_MAX(joint_interval.last, lhs_interval.last);
+ }
+ value_set_append(&result, joint_interval);
+
+ /* Append to result all lhs intervals following rhs. */
+ for (; index != lhs->nb_interval; ++index)
+ value_set_append(&result, lhs->interval[index]);
+
+ return result;
+}
+
+/* Make "normal" maximal disjoint interval value set out of noncyclic one. */
+static struct value_set
+value_set_from_noncyclic(const struct value_set *set)
+{
+ struct value_set result = {};
+ uint32_t index = 0;
+
+ if (set->nb_interval <= 1)
+ return *set;
+
+ struct value_set_interval last_interval = set->interval[set->nb_interval - 1];
+ if (last_interval.last == UINT64_MAX && set->interval[0].first == 0) {
+ /* Join first interval with the last one instead of copying it. */
+ last_interval.last = set->interval[0].last;
+ ++index;
+ }
+
+ for (; index != set->nb_interval - 1; ++index)
+ value_set_append(&result, set->interval[index]);
+
+ value_set_append(&result, last_interval);
+
+ return result;
+}
+
+/* Make lhs a union of lhs and rhs. */
+static void
+value_set_union_interval(struct value_set *lhs, const struct value_set_interval rhs)
+{
+ struct value_set temp;
+
+ if (value_set_is_empty(lhs)) {
+ value_set_append(lhs, rhs);
+ return;
+ }
+
+ struct value_set_interval *const last_interval = &lhs->interval[lhs->nb_interval - 1];
+ const bool last_interval_crossed_zero = interval_crosses_zero(*last_interval);
+ const uint64_t wrapping_last = last_interval->last;
+
+ if (last_interval_crossed_zero)
+ /* Make value set noncyclic by removing crossing part of last interval. */
+ last_interval->last = UINT64_MAX;
+
+ if (interval_crosses_zero(rhs)) {
+ /* Add parts before and after zero separately. */
+ temp = noncyclic_value_set_union_interval(lhs,
+ (struct value_set_interval){
+ .first = rhs.first,
+ .last = UINT64_MAX,
+ });
+ temp = noncyclic_value_set_union_interval(lhs,
+ (struct value_set_interval){
+ .first = 0,
+ .last = rhs.last,
+ });
+ } else
+ temp = noncyclic_value_set_union_interval(lhs, rhs);
+
+ if (last_interval_crossed_zero)
+ /* Restore previously removed part. */
+ temp = noncyclic_value_set_union_interval(&temp,
+ (struct value_set_interval){
+ .first = 0,
+ .last = wrapping_last,
+ });
+
+ *lhs = value_set_from_noncyclic(&temp);
+}
+
+/* Set `lhs` to the set of possible sums between values from `lhs` and `rhs`. */
+static void
+value_set_add_interval(struct value_set *lhs, struct value_set_interval rhs)
+{
+ const struct value_set temp = *lhs;
+ lhs->nb_interval = 0;
+
+ for (uint32_t index = 0; index != temp.nb_interval; ++index) {
+ const struct value_set_interval interval = temp.interval[index];
+ if (interval_is_full(rhs) || interval_is_full(interval) ||
+ interval_size(interval) > UINT64_MAX - interval_size(rhs)) {
+ value_set_append(lhs, canonical_full_interval);
+ return;
+ }
+ }
+
+ for (uint32_t index = 0; index != temp.nb_interval; ++index)
+ value_set_union_interval(lhs, (struct value_set_interval){
+ /* Checked sizes above, so these interval expansions won't overflow. */
+ .first = temp.interval[index].first + rhs.first,
+ .last = temp.interval[index].last + rhs.last,
+ });
+}
+
+struct value_set
+value_set_singleton(uint64_t value)
+{
+ return value_set_contiguous(value, value);
+}
+
+struct value_set
+value_set_contiguous(uint64_t first, uint64_t last)
+{
+ return (struct value_set){
+ .nb_interval = 1,
+ .interval = {
+ { .first = first, .last = last },
+ },
+ };
+}
+
+struct value_set
+value_set_from_pair(uint64_t first1, uint64_t last1, uint64_t first2, uint64_t last2)
+{
+ struct value_set result = {};
+
+ if (first1 - first2 <= last2 - first2)
+ /* Interval 1 starts within interval 2. */
+ value_set_union_interval(&result, (struct value_set_interval){
+ .first = first1,
+ .last = first1 + RTE_MIN(last1 - first1, last2 - first1),
+ });
+
+ if (first2 - first1 <= last1 - first1)
+ /* Interval 2 starts within interval 1. */
+ value_set_union_interval(&result, (struct value_set_interval){
+ .first = first2,
+ .last = first2 + RTE_MIN(last2 - first2, last1 - first2),
+ });
+
+ return result;
+}
+
+bool
+value_set_is_empty(const struct value_set *set)
+{
+ return set->nb_interval == 0;
+}
+
+bool
+value_set_is_singleton(const struct value_set *set)
+{
+ return set->nb_interval == 1 && interval_size(set->interval[0]) == 1;
+}
+
+bool
+value_sets_equal(const struct value_set *lhs, const struct value_set *rhs)
+{
+ if (lhs->nb_interval != rhs->nb_interval)
+ return false;
+
+ for (uint32_t index = 0; index != lhs->nb_interval; ++index)
+ if (!intervals_equal(lhs->interval[index], rhs->interval[index]))
+ return false;
+
+ return true;
+}
+
+bool
+value_sets_intersect(const struct value_set *lhs, const struct value_set *rhs)
+{
+ for (uint32_t lhs_index = 0; lhs_index != lhs->nb_interval; ++lhs_index)
+ for (uint32_t rhs_index = 0; rhs_index != rhs->nb_interval; ++rhs_index)
+ if (intervals_intersect(lhs->interval[lhs_index], rhs->interval[rhs_index]))
+ return true;
+
+ return false;
+}
+
+bool
+value_set_is_covered_by_contiguous(const struct value_set *lhs, uint64_t first, uint64_t last)
+{
+ const struct value_set_interval rhs = { .first = first, .last = last };
+ for (uint32_t lhs_index = 0; lhs_index != lhs->nb_interval; ++lhs_index)
+ if (!interval_covers(rhs, lhs->interval[lhs_index]))
+ return false;
+
+ return true;
+}
+
+bool
+value_sets_based_less(const struct value_set *origin, const struct value_set *lhs,
+ const struct value_set *rhs)
+{
+ for (uint32_t origin_index = 0; origin_index != origin->nb_interval; ++origin_index)
+ for (uint32_t lhs_index = 0; lhs_index != lhs->nb_interval; ++lhs_index)
+ for (uint32_t rhs_index = 0; rhs_index != rhs->nb_interval; ++rhs_index)
+ if (!intervals_based_less(origin->interval[origin_index],
+ lhs->interval[lhs_index], rhs->interval[rhs_index]))
+ return false;
+ return true;
+}
+
+bool
+value_sets_based_less_or_equal(const struct value_set *origin, const struct value_set *lhs,
+ const struct value_set *rhs)
+{
+ for (uint32_t origin_index = 0; origin_index != origin->nb_interval; ++origin_index)
+ for (uint32_t lhs_index = 0; lhs_index != lhs->nb_interval; ++lhs_index)
+ for (uint32_t rhs_index = 0; rhs_index != rhs->nb_interval; ++rhs_index)
+ if (!intervals_based_less_or_equal(origin->interval[origin_index],
+ lhs->interval[lhs_index], rhs->interval[rhs_index]))
+ return false;
+ return true;
+}
+
+void
+value_set_translate(struct value_set *set, uint64_t offset)
+{
+ for (uint32_t index = 0; index != set->nb_interval; ++index)
+ interval_translate(&set->interval[index], offset);
+}
+
+void
+value_set_add_contiguous(struct value_set *lhs, uint64_t first, uint64_t last)
+{
+ value_set_add_interval(lhs, (struct value_set_interval){ .first = first, .last = last });
+}
diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_value_set.h b/lib/bpf/bpf_value_set.h
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..5e7f8e521f55
--- /dev/null
+++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_value_set.h
@@ -0,0 +1,126 @@
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
+ * Copyright(c) 2026 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
+ */
+
+#ifndef _BPF_VALUE_SET_H_
+#define _BPF_VALUE_SET_H_
+
+/**
+ * @file value_set.h
+ *
+ * Value set operations for BPF validate debug.
+ *
+ * This is not a general use library, only minimal set of operations is provided
+ * that are necessary for implementing validate debug interface.
+ */
+
+#include <stdbool.h>
+#include <stdint.h>
+
+#ifdef __cplusplus
+extern "C" {
+#endif
+
+#define VALUE_SET_NB_INTERVAL_MAX 3
+
+/*
+ * Cyclic interval on uint64_t.
+ *
+ * Cyclic means value of `last` might be numerically smaller than `first`,
+ * that is the interval may cross from UINT64_MAX to 0.
+ *
+ * Contains element `first` and all elements that can be obtained from it by
+ * adding 1 until the result reaches `last`, which is included.
+ * There is thus multiple representations of the full set and no representation
+ * of the empty set.
+ *
+ * When `first` and `last` are accepted separately as function arguments, the
+ * term _contiguous_ is being used. It means that values of `first` and `last`
+ * are used to create a contiguous set composed of a single cyclic interval
+ * defined by these points.
+ */
+struct value_set_interval {
+ uint64_t first;
+ uint64_t last;
+};
+
+/*
+ * Set of values represented as an ordered sequence of maximal disjoint cyclic intervals.
+ *
+ * Condition `maximal disjoint` means intervals do not intersect or touch each other.
+ *
+ * The sequence is ordered by member `first`. Only last interval may thus cross zero.
+ */
+struct value_set {
+ uint32_t nb_interval;
+ struct value_set_interval interval[VALUE_SET_NB_INTERVAL_MAX];
+};
+
+/* Empty value set. */
+static const struct value_set value_set_empty = {
+ .nb_interval = 0,
+};
+
+/* Full (including every possible value) value set. */
+static const struct value_set value_set_full = {
+ .nb_interval = 1,
+ .interval = {
+ { .first = 0, .last = UINT64_MAX },
+ },
+};
+
+/* Return set containing only `value`. */
+struct value_set
+value_set_singleton(uint64_t value);
+
+/* Return set of all values between and including `first` and `last` (AKA first..last). */
+struct value_set
+value_set_contiguous(uint64_t first, uint64_t last);
+
+/* Return set of all values belonging to _both_ first1..last1 and first2..last. */
+struct value_set
+value_set_from_pair(uint64_t first1, uint64_t last1, uint64_t first2, uint64_t last2);
+
+/* Return true if the set is empty. */
+bool
+value_set_is_empty(const struct value_set *set);
+
+/* Return true if the set only contains one element. */
+bool
+value_set_is_singleton(const struct value_set *set);
+
+/* Return true if lhs and rhs represent the same set. */
+bool
+value_sets_equal(const struct value_set *lhs, const struct value_set *rhs);
+
+/* Return true if sets intersect (contain common elements). */
+bool
+value_sets_intersect(const struct value_set *lhs, const struct value_set *rhs);
+
+/* Return true if all elements in lhs belong to interval first..last */
+bool
+value_set_is_covered_by_contiguous(const struct value_set *lhs, uint64_t first, uint64_t last);
+
+/* Return true if `(l - o) < (r - o)` for all `(o in origin, l in lhs, r in rhs)`. */
+bool
+value_sets_based_less(const struct value_set *origin, const struct value_set *lhs,
+ const struct value_set *rhs);
+
+/* Return true if `(l - o) <= (r - o)` for all `(o in origin, l in lhs, r in rhs)`. */
+bool
+value_sets_based_less_or_equal(const struct value_set *origin, const struct value_set *lhs,
+ const struct value_set *rhs);
+
+/* Translate ("shift") all set elements by `offset`. */
+void
+value_set_translate(struct value_set *lhs, uint64_t rhs);
+
+/* Set `lhs` to the set of possible sums between values from `lhs` and `rhs`. */
+void
+value_set_add_contiguous(struct value_set *lhs, uint64_t first, uint64_t last);
+
+#ifdef __cplusplus
+}
+#endif
+
+#endif /* _BPF_VALUE_SET_H */
diff --git a/lib/bpf/meson.build b/lib/bpf/meson.build
index 7e8a300e3f87..b74a5c232107 100644
--- a/lib/bpf/meson.build
+++ b/lib/bpf/meson.build
@@ -24,6 +24,8 @@ sources = files(
'bpf_load_elf.c',
'bpf_pkt.c',
'bpf_validate.c',
+ 'bpf_validate_debug.c',
+ 'bpf_value_set.c',
)
if arch_subdir == 'x86' and dpdk_conf.get('RTE_ARCH_64')
@@ -32,9 +34,12 @@ elif dpdk_conf.has('RTE_ARCH_ARM64')
sources += files('bpf_jit_arm64.c')
endif
-headers = files('bpf_def.h',
+headers = files(
+ 'bpf_def.h',
'rte_bpf.h',
- 'rte_bpf_ethdev.h')
+ 'rte_bpf_ethdev.h',
+ 'rte_bpf_validate_debug.h',
+)
deps += ['mbuf', 'net', 'ethdev']
diff --git a/lib/bpf/rte_bpf.h b/lib/bpf/rte_bpf.h
index b6c232704a56..052849945c45 100644
--- a/lib/bpf/rte_bpf.h
+++ b/lib/bpf/rte_bpf.h
@@ -118,6 +118,7 @@ enum rte_bpf_origin {
};
struct bpf_insn;
+struct rte_bpf_validate_debug;
/**
* Input parameters for loading eBPF code, extensible version.
@@ -158,6 +159,9 @@ struct rte_bpf_prm_ex {
struct rte_bpf_arg prog_arg[EBPF_FUNC_MAX_ARGS]; /**< program arguments */
uint32_t nb_prog_arg; /**< program argument count */
+
+ /* Validate debug instance. */
+ struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug;
};
/**
diff --git a/lib/bpf/rte_bpf_validate_debug.h b/lib/bpf/rte_bpf_validate_debug.h
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..89bf587f0211
--- /dev/null
+++ b/lib/bpf/rte_bpf_validate_debug.h
@@ -0,0 +1,375 @@
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
+ * Copyright(c) 2025 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
+ */
+
+#ifndef _RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_H_
+#define _RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_H_
+
+/**
+ * @file rte_bpf_validate_debug.h
+ *
+ * Debugging interface for BPF validation.
+ *
+ * Can be used for debugging BPF validation problems as well as in tests.
+ */
+
+#include <bpf_def.h>
+#include <rte_compat.h>
+
+#include <stdbool.h>
+#include <stddef.h>
+#include <stdint.h>
+
+#ifdef __cplusplus
+extern "C" {
+#endif
+
+#define RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_MAY_BE_FALSE RTE_BIT32(0)
+#define RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_MAY_BE_TRUE RTE_BIT32(1)
+
+/**
+ * Supported validate events.
+ *
+ * Valid events begin from 0 and end before `RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_EVENT_END`.
+ */
+enum rte_bpf_validate_debug_event {
+ /* Just before every instruction, at branch or validation end. */
+ RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_EVENT_STEP,
+ /* Validator has failed its internal self-checks. */
+ RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_EVENT_INVALID_STATE,
+ /* Start of validation. */
+ RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_EVENT_VALIDATION_START,
+ /* Successful finish of validation. */
+ RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_EVENT_VALIDATION_SUCCESS,
+ /* Finish of validation with error. */
+ RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_EVENT_VALIDATION_FAILURE,
+ /* Beginning of a branch just after the jump. */
+ RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_EVENT_BRANCH_ENTER,
+ /* Pruning branch as verified earlier. */
+ RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_EVENT_BRANCH_PRUNE,
+ /* End of branch verification, after the last verified instruction. */
+ RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_EVENT_BRANCH_RETURN,
+ /* Number of valid event values. */
+ RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_EVENT_END,
+};
+
+struct rte_bpf_validate_debug;
+struct rte_bpf_validate_debug_point;
+
+/** User callback description. */
+struct rte_bpf_validate_debug_callback {
+ int (*fn)(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug, void *ctx);
+ void *ctx;
+};
+
+/** Invoked by rte_bpf_validate_debug_for_each_point for each breakpoint and catchpoint. */
+typedef int (*rte_bpf_validate_debug_point_process_t)(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug_point *point,
+ void *ctx);
+
+/**
+ * Create new debug instance.
+ *
+ * @return
+ * Debug instance in case of success.
+ * NULL with rte_errno set in case of a failure.
+ */
+__rte_experimental
+struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *
+rte_bpf_validate_debug_create(void);
+
+/**
+ * Destroy debug instance.
+ *
+ * Behavior is undefined if validation with this debug instance is ongoing.
+ *
+ * @param debug
+ * Debug instance, or NULL.
+ */
+__rte_experimental
+void
+rte_bpf_validate_debug_destroy(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug);
+
+/**
+ * Create new breakpoint at specified location.
+ *
+ * Can be called before the validation has started. If at validation start later
+ * the program will not have the specified instruction, the start will fail.
+ *
+ * It is allowed to create breakpoints for the same location a callback is
+ * currently executing for, but it will not be invoked in the same cycle.
+ *
+ * @param debug
+ * Debug instance.
+ * @param pc
+ * Program counter to create breakpoint at.
+ * @param callback
+ * Callback to invoke.
+ * @return
+ * New breakpoint on success, NULL with rte_errno set on failure.
+ */
+__rte_experimental
+struct rte_bpf_validate_debug_point *
+rte_bpf_validate_debug_break(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug, uint32_t pc,
+ const struct rte_bpf_validate_debug_callback *callback);
+
+/**
+ * Create new catchpoint for specified event.
+ *
+ * Can be called before the validation has started.
+ *
+ * It is allowed to create catchpoints for the same event a callback is
+ * currently executing for, but it will not be invoked in the same cycle.
+ *
+ * @param debug
+ * Debug instance.
+ * @param event
+ * Validation event to create catchpoint for.
+ * @param callback
+ * Callback to invoke.
+ * @return
+ * New breakpoint on success, NULL with rte_errno set on failure.
+ */
+__rte_experimental
+struct rte_bpf_validate_debug_point *
+rte_bpf_validate_debug_catch(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug,
+ enum rte_bpf_validate_debug_event event,
+ const struct rte_bpf_validate_debug_callback *callback);
+
+/**
+ * Delete breakpoint or catchpoint and free all associated resources.
+ *
+ * If a callback is currently being executed, calling this API is allowed for:
+ * - breakpoint or catchpoint the callback is executed for;
+ * - breakpoints or catchpoints for other locations or events;
+ * and NOT allowed for:
+ * - other breakpoints or catchpoints for the same location or event.
+ *
+ * @param point
+ * Breakpoint or catchpoint to destroy, or NULL.
+ */
+__rte_experimental
+void
+rte_bpf_validate_debug_point_destroy(struct rte_bpf_validate_debug_point *point);
+
+/**
+ * Get effective eBPF parameters struct.
+ *
+ * @param debug
+ * Debug instance.
+ * @return
+ * Parameters struct of the validated eBPF program, including code with all
+ * patches and relocations applied.
+ */
+__rte_experimental
+const struct rte_bpf_prm_ex *
+rte_bpf_validate_debug_get_bpf_param(const struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug);
+
+/**
+ * Get pointer to effective eBPF program instructions.
+ *
+ * @param debug
+ * Debug instance.
+ * @param ins
+ * Upon return, program instructions with all patches and relocations applied.
+ * @param nb_ins
+ * Upon return, number of program instructions.
+ * @return
+ * Non-negative value on success, negative errno on failure.
+ */
+__rte_experimental
+int
+rte_bpf_validate_debug_get_ins(const struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug,
+ const struct ebpf_insn **ins, uint32_t *nb_ins);
+
+/**
+ * Get last triggered breakpoint or catchpoint.
+ *
+ * Can be used to destroy currently processed breakpoint or catchpoint.
+ *
+ * The pointer may be invalid if the breakpoint or catchpoint has already been
+ * destroyed earlier.
+ *
+ * @param debug
+ * Debug instance.
+ * @return
+ * Last triggered breakpoint or callpoint, including one the callback is
+ * currently executing for.
+ * NULL of none were triggered in the current validation process.
+ */
+__rte_experimental
+struct rte_bpf_validate_debug_point *
+rte_bpf_validate_debug_get_last_point(const struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug);
+
+/**
+ * Get current instruction index, or one after last if finishing.
+ *
+ * @param debug
+ * Debug instance.
+ * @return
+ * Current program counter being validated, or one after last.
+ * UINT32_MAX if no program is being validated.
+ */
+__rte_experimental
+uint32_t
+rte_bpf_validate_debug_get_pc(const struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug);
+
+/**
+ * Get the validation result, if it has finished.
+ *
+ * @param debug
+ * Debug instance.
+ * @param result
+ * Upon successful return, the validation result (negative if validation failed).
+ * @return
+ * Non-negative value if validation has finished and result variable was written;
+ * -EAGAIN if validation is still ongoing;
+ * other negative errno in case of failure;
+ */
+__rte_experimental
+int
+rte_bpf_validate_debug_get_validation_result(const struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug,
+ int *result);
+
+/**
+ * Check if specified memory access instruction is currently valid.
+ *
+ * @param debug
+ * Debug instance.
+ * @param access
+ * Memory load or store eBPF instruction.
+ * @param off64
+ * Additional 64-bit offset added to ins->off.
+ * @return
+ * 1 if specified memory access is currently valid;
+ * 0 if specified memory access is currently invalid;
+ * negative errno in case of failure;
+ */
+__rte_experimental
+int
+rte_bpf_validate_debug_can_access(const struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug,
+ const struct ebpf_insn *access, uint64_t off64);
+
+/**
+ * Get possible truth values of the specified jump condition.
+ *
+ * @param debug
+ * Debug instance.
+ * @param jump
+ * Conditional jump instruction specifying the condition.
+ * @param imm64
+ * Additional 64-bit immediate added to the source.
+ * @return
+ * in case of success, bitwise combination of:
+ * RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_MAY_BE_FALSE if the jump condition may be false;
+ * RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_MAY_BE_TRUE if the jump condition may be true;
+ * negative errno in case of failure.
+ */
+__rte_experimental
+int
+rte_bpf_validate_debug_may_jump(const struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug,
+ const struct ebpf_insn *jump, uint64_t imm64);
+
+/**
+ * Format information about specified register for the user.
+ *
+ * Parameters buffer, bufsz and return value work the same way as for snprintf.
+ *
+ * @param debug
+ * Debug instance.
+ * @param buffer
+ * Buffer to fill with register information.
+ * @param bufsz
+ * Buffer size (including space for terminating zero).
+ * @param reg
+ * Register to provide information about.
+ * @return
+ * Number of characters needed _excluding_ terminating zero.
+ */
+__rte_experimental
+int
+rte_bpf_validate_debug_format_register_info(const struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug,
+ char *buffer, size_t bufsz, uint8_t reg);
+
+/**
+ * Format information about specified stack frame location for the user.
+ *
+ * Parameters buffer, bufsz and return value work the same way as for snprintf.
+ *
+ * @param debug
+ * Debug instance.
+ * @param buffer
+ * Buffer to fill with register information.
+ * @param bufsz
+ * Buffer size (including space for terminating zero).
+ * @param offset
+ * Stack frame offset to provide information about, in bytes.
+ * Typically a negative multiple of 8.
+ * @return
+ * Number of characters needed _excluding_ terminating zero.
+ */
+__rte_experimental
+int
+rte_bpf_validate_debug_format_frame_info(const struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug,
+ char *buffer, size_t bufsz, int32_t offset);
+
+/**
+ * Get program stack frame size.
+ *
+ * @param debug
+ * Debug instance.
+ * @return
+ * Program stack frame size in bytes.
+ */
+__rte_experimental
+int32_t
+rte_bpf_validate_debug_get_frame_size(const struct rte_bpf_validate_debug *debug);
+
+/**
+ * Format value following the style of register format function.
+ *
+ * Parameters buffer, bufsz and return value work the same way as for snprintf.
+ *
+ * @param buffer
+ * Buffer to fill with register information.
+ * @param bufsz
+ * Buffer size (including space for terminating zero).
+ * @param format
+ * One of characters 'd' or 'x' for signed or hexadecimal format.
+ * @param value
+ * Formatted value, can be signed typecast to unsigned.
+ * @return
+ * Number of characters needed _excluding_ terminating zero.
+ */
+__rte_experimental
+int
+rte_bpf_validate_debug_format_value(char *buffer, size_t bufsz, char format,
+ uint64_t value);
+
+/**
+ * Format interval following the style of register format function.
+ *
+ * Parameters buffer, bufsz and return value work the same way as for snprintf.
+ *
+ * @param buffer
+ * Buffer to fill with register information.
+ * @param bufsz
+ * Buffer size (including space for terminating zero).
+ * @param format
+ * One of characters 'd' or 'x' for signed or hexadecimal format.
+ * @param min
+ * Minimum value of the interval, can be signed typecast to unsigned.
+ * @param max
+ * Maximum value of the interval, can be signed typecast to unsigned.
+ * @return
+ * Number of characters needed _excluding_ terminating zero.
+ */
+__rte_experimental
+int
+rte_bpf_validate_debug_format_interval(char *buffer, size_t bufsz, char format,
+ uint64_t min, uint64_t max);
+
+#ifdef __cplusplus
+}
+#endif
+
+#endif /* _RTE_BPF_VALIDATE_DEBUG_H_ */
--
2.43.0
^ permalink raw reply related
* [PATCH v4 04/24] bpf/validate: expand comments in evaluate cycle
From: Marat Khalili @ 2026-06-23 14:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Konstantin Ananyev; +Cc: dev
In-Reply-To: <20260623143215.95318-1-marat.khalili@huawei.com>
Logic of execution tree traversal is not 100% obvious, and had some bugs
in the past. Add and expand comments to clarify what `next` and `node`
variables are supposed to point to at various points of the cycle.
Signed-off-by: Marat Khalili <marat.khalili@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com>
---
lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c | 12 ++++++++++--
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c b/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
index 1619faf3604a..362d00c77095 100644
--- a/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
+++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
@@ -2449,6 +2449,7 @@ evaluate(struct bpf_verifier *bvf)
* each node only once.
*/
if (next != NULL) {
+ /* just started or stepped down the tree, node == next */
bvf->evin = node;
idx = get_node_idx(bvf, node);
@@ -2481,8 +2482,10 @@ evaluate(struct bpf_verifier *bvf)
next = get_next_node(bvf, node);
if (next != NULL) {
-
- /* proceed with next child */
+ /*
+ * proceed with next child
+ * next points to an unwalked subtree of node
+ */
if (node->cur_edge == node->nb_edge &&
node->evst.cur != NULL) {
restore_cur_eval_state(bvf, node);
@@ -2514,6 +2517,11 @@ evaluate(struct bpf_verifier *bvf)
/* first node will not have prev, signalling finish */
}
+
+ /*
+ * next != NULL: stepped down the tree, node == next;
+ * next == NULL: stepped up after processing or pruning subtree;
+ */
}
RTE_LOG(DEBUG, BPF, "%s(%p) returns %d, stats:\n"
--
2.43.0
^ permalink raw reply related
* [PATCH v4 03/24] bpf/validate: break on error in evaluate
From: Marat Khalili @ 2026-06-23 14:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Konstantin Ananyev; +Cc: dev
In-Reply-To: <20260623143215.95318-1-marat.khalili@huawei.com>
Evaluation loop previously continued until the cycle end in case of an
evaluation error. It made reasoning about the code difficult since it
might be executing when the evaluation is already in an invalid state.
Change loop logic to break out of the loop immediately after an error.
Signed-off-by: Marat Khalili <marat.khalili@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com>
---
lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c | 12 +++++++-----
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c b/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
index bf8a4abb5a5a..1619faf3604a 100644
--- a/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
+++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c
@@ -2401,11 +2401,11 @@ prune_eval_state(struct bpf_verifier *bvf, const struct inst_node *node,
static int
evaluate(struct bpf_verifier *bvf)
{
- int32_t rc;
uint32_t idx, op;
const char *err;
const struct ebpf_insn *ins;
struct inst_node *next, *node;
+ int rc = 0;
struct {
uint32_t nb_eval;
@@ -2439,11 +2439,10 @@ evaluate(struct bpf_verifier *bvf)
ins = bvf->prm->raw.ins;
node = bvf->in;
next = node;
- rc = 0;
memset(&stats, 0, sizeof(stats));
- while (node != NULL && rc == 0) {
+ while (node != NULL) {
/*
* current node evaluation, make sure we evaluate
@@ -2457,17 +2456,20 @@ evaluate(struct bpf_verifier *bvf)
/* for jcc node make a copy of evaluation state */
if (node->nb_edge > 1) {
- rc |= save_cur_eval_state(bvf, node);
+ rc = save_cur_eval_state(bvf, node);
+ if (rc < 0)
+ break;
stats.nb_save++;
}
- if (ins_chk[op].eval != NULL && rc == 0) {
+ if (ins_chk[op].eval != NULL) {
err = ins_chk[op].eval(bvf, ins + idx);
stats.nb_eval++;
if (err != NULL) {
RTE_BPF_LOG_FUNC_LINE(ERR,
"%s at pc: %u", err, idx);
rc = -EINVAL;
+ break;
}
}
--
2.43.0
^ permalink raw reply related
* [PATCH v4 01/24] bpf: format and dump jlt, jle, jslt, and jsle
From: Marat Khalili @ 2026-06-23 14:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Konstantin Ananyev; +Cc: dev
In-Reply-To: <20260623143215.95318-1-marat.khalili@huawei.com>
Signed and unsigned less and less-then conditional jumps were not
supported by the eBPF format and dump functions, add these instructions.
Signed-off-by: Marat Khalili <marat.khalili@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com>
---
lib/bpf/bpf_dump.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_dump.c b/lib/bpf/bpf_dump.c
index 91bc7c0a7af1..0abaeef8ae98 100644
--- a/lib/bpf/bpf_dump.c
+++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_dump.c
@@ -42,6 +42,8 @@ static const char *const jump_tbl[16] = {
[BPF_JSET >> 4] = "jset", [EBPF_JNE >> 4] = "jne",
[EBPF_JSGT >> 4] = "jsgt", [EBPF_JSGE >> 4] = "jsge",
[EBPF_CALL >> 4] = "call", [EBPF_EXIT >> 4] = "exit",
+ [EBPF_JLT >> 4] = "jlt", [EBPF_JLE >> 4] = "jle",
+ [EBPF_JSLT >> 4] = "jslt", [EBPF_JSLE >> 4] = "jsle",
};
static inline const char *
--
2.43.0
^ permalink raw reply related
* [PATCH v4 02/24] bpf: add format instruction function
From: Marat Khalili @ 2026-06-23 14:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Konstantin Ananyev; +Cc: dev
In-Reply-To: <20260623143215.95318-1-marat.khalili@huawei.com>
BPF library already contains BPF instruction formatting functions, but
they could only be used via `rte_bpf_dump` to dump result into file. Add
new function `rte_bpf_format` to format instruction in various way
(hexadecimal, disassembly) into a user-provided buffer, as well as a
service function `rte_bpf_insn_is_wide` to detect wide instructions.
Signed-off-by: Marat Khalili <marat.khalili@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com>
---
lib/bpf/bpf_dump.c | 290 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
lib/bpf/rte_bpf.h | 51 ++++++++
2 files changed, 226 insertions(+), 115 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_dump.c b/lib/bpf/bpf_dump.c
index 0abaeef8ae98..4fd67ad5a1df 100644
--- a/lib/bpf/bpf_dump.c
+++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_dump.c
@@ -46,6 +46,38 @@ static const char *const jump_tbl[16] = {
[EBPF_JSLT >> 4] = "jslt", [EBPF_JSLE >> 4] = "jsle",
};
+RTE_EXPORT_EXPERIMENTAL_SYMBOL(rte_bpf_insn_is_wide, 26.07)
+bool
+rte_bpf_insn_is_wide(const struct ebpf_insn *ins)
+{
+ return ins->code == (BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | EBPF_DW);
+}
+
+
+/* Format one (possibly wide) eBPF command as hexadecimal in objdump format. */
+static int
+format_hexadecimal(char *buffer, size_t bufsz, const struct ebpf_insn *ins,
+ uint32_t flags)
+{
+ const char *const b = (const char *)ins;
+
+ RTE_ASSERT((flags & RTE_BPF_FORMAT_FLAG_HEXADECIMAL) != 0);
+
+ RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(*ins) != 8);
+
+ if ((flags & RTE_BPF_FORMAT_FLAG_NEVER_WIDE) == 0 && rte_bpf_insn_is_wide(ins))
+ return snprintf(buffer, bufsz,
+ "%02hhx %02hhx %02hhx %02hhx %02hhx %02hhx %02hhx %02hhx "
+ "%02hhx %02hhx %02hhx %02hhx %02hhx %02hhx %02hhx %02hhx",
+ b[0], b[1], b[2], b[3], b[4], b[5], b[6], b[7],
+ b[8], b[9], b[10], b[11], b[12], b[13], b[14], b[15]);
+ else
+ return snprintf(buffer, bufsz,
+ "%02hhx %02hhx %02hhx %02hhx %02hhx %02hhx %02hhx %02hhx",
+ b[0], b[1], b[2], b[3], b[4], b[5], b[6], b[7]);
+}
+
+/* Return atomic subcommand mnemonic based on BPF_STX immediate. */
static inline const char *
atomic_op(int32_t imm)
{
@@ -59,130 +91,158 @@ atomic_op(int32_t imm)
}
}
-RTE_EXPORT_SYMBOL(rte_bpf_dump)
-void rte_bpf_dump(FILE *f, const struct ebpf_insn *buf, uint32_t len)
+/* Format one (possibly wide) eBPF command as assembler. */
+static int
+format_disassembly(char *buffer, size_t bufsz, const struct ebpf_insn *ins,
+ uint32_t pc, uint32_t flags)
{
- uint32_t i;
+ uint8_t cls = BPF_CLASS(ins->code);
+ const char *op, *postfix = "", *warning = "";
+ char jump[16];
- for (i = 0; i < len; ++i) {
- const struct ebpf_insn *ins = buf + i;
- uint8_t cls = BPF_CLASS(ins->code);
- const char *op, *postfix = "", *warning = "";
+ RTE_ASSERT((flags & RTE_BPF_FORMAT_FLAG_HEXADECIMAL) == 0);
- fprintf(f, " L%u:\t", i);
+ switch (cls) {
+ default:
+ return snprintf(buffer, bufsz, "unimp 0x%x // class: %s",
+ ins->code, class_tbl[cls]);
+ case BPF_ALU:
+ postfix = "32";
+ /* fall through */
+ case EBPF_ALU64:
+ op = alu_op_tbl[BPF_OP_INDEX(ins->code)];
+ if (ins->off != 0)
+ /* Not yet supported variation with non-zero offset. */
+ warning = ", off != 0";
+ if (BPF_SRC(ins->code) == BPF_X)
+ return snprintf(buffer, bufsz, "%s%s r%u, r%u%s", op, postfix, ins->dst_reg,
+ ins->src_reg, warning);
+ else
+ return snprintf(buffer, bufsz, "%s%s r%u, #0x%x%s", op, postfix,
+ ins->dst_reg, ins->imm, warning);
+ case BPF_LD:
+ op = "ld";
+ postfix = size_tbl[BPF_SIZE_INDEX(ins->code)];
+ if (ins->code == (BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | EBPF_DW)) {
+ uint64_t val;
- switch (cls) {
- default:
- fprintf(f, "unimp 0x%x // class: %s\n",
- ins->code, class_tbl[cls]);
- break;
- case BPF_ALU:
- postfix = "32";
- /* fall through */
- case EBPF_ALU64:
- op = alu_op_tbl[BPF_OP_INDEX(ins->code)];
- if (ins->off != 0)
- /* Not yet supported variation with non-zero offset. */
- warning = ", off != 0";
- if (BPF_SRC(ins->code) == BPF_X)
- fprintf(f, "%s%s r%u, r%u%s\n", op, postfix, ins->dst_reg,
- ins->src_reg, warning);
- else
- fprintf(f, "%s%s r%u, #0x%x%s\n", op, postfix,
- ins->dst_reg, ins->imm, warning);
- break;
- case BPF_LD:
- op = "ld";
- postfix = size_tbl[BPF_SIZE_INDEX(ins->code)];
- if (ins->code == (BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | EBPF_DW)) {
- uint64_t val;
-
- if (ins->src_reg != 0)
- /* Not yet supported variation with non-zero src. */
- warning = ", src != 0";
- val = (uint32_t)ins[0].imm |
- (uint64_t)(uint32_t)ins[1].imm << 32;
- fprintf(f, "%s%s r%d, #0x%"PRIx64"%s\n",
- op, postfix, ins->dst_reg, val, warning);
- i++;
- } else if (BPF_MODE(ins->code) == BPF_IMM)
- fprintf(f, "%s%s r%d, #0x%x\n", op, postfix,
- ins->dst_reg, ins->imm);
- else if (BPF_MODE(ins->code) == BPF_ABS)
- fprintf(f, "%s%s r%d, [%d]\n", op, postfix,
- ins->dst_reg, ins->imm);
- else if (BPF_MODE(ins->code) == BPF_IND)
- fprintf(f, "%s%s r%d, [r%u + %d]\n", op, postfix,
- ins->dst_reg, ins->src_reg, ins->imm);
- else
- fprintf(f, "// BUG: LD opcode 0x%02x in eBPF insns\n",
- ins->code);
- break;
- case BPF_LDX:
- op = "ldx";
- postfix = size_tbl[BPF_SIZE_INDEX(ins->code)];
- if (BPF_MODE(ins->code) == BPF_MEM)
- fprintf(f, "%s%s r%d, [r%u + %d]\n", op, postfix, ins->dst_reg,
- ins->src_reg, ins->off);
- else
- fprintf(f, "// BUG: LDX opcode 0x%02x in eBPF insns\n",
- ins->code);
- break;
- case BPF_ST:
- op = "st";
- postfix = size_tbl[BPF_SIZE_INDEX(ins->code)];
- if (BPF_MODE(ins->code) == BPF_MEM)
- fprintf(f, "%s%s [r%d + %d], #0x%x\n", op, postfix,
- ins->dst_reg, ins->off, ins->imm);
- else
- fprintf(f, "// BUG: ST opcode 0x%02x in eBPF insns\n",
- ins->code);
- break;
- case BPF_STX:
- if (BPF_MODE(ins->code) == BPF_MEM)
- op = "stx";
- else if (BPF_MODE(ins->code) == EBPF_ATOMIC) {
- op = atomic_op(ins->imm);
- if (op == NULL) {
- fprintf(f, "// BUG: ATOMIC operation 0x%x in eBPF insns\n",
- ins->imm);
- break;
- }
- } else {
- fprintf(f, "// BUG: STX opcode 0x%02x in eBPF insns\n",
- ins->code);
- break;
- }
- postfix = size_tbl[BPF_SIZE_INDEX(ins->code)];
- fprintf(f, "%s%s [r%d + %d], r%u\n", op, postfix,
- ins->dst_reg, ins->off, ins->src_reg);
- break;
-#define L(pc, off) ((int)(pc) + 1 + (off))
- case BPF_JMP:
- op = jump_tbl[BPF_OP_INDEX(ins->code)];
if (ins->src_reg != 0)
- /* Not yet supported variation with non-zero src w/o condition. */
+ /* Not yet supported variation with non-zero src. */
warning = ", src != 0";
+ val = (uint32_t)ins[0].imm |
+ (uint64_t)(uint32_t)ins[1].imm << 32;
+ return snprintf(buffer, bufsz, "%s%s r%d, #0x%"PRIx64"%s",
+ op, postfix, ins->dst_reg, val, warning);
+ }
+ switch (BPF_MODE(ins->code)) {
+ case BPF_IMM:
+ return snprintf(buffer, bufsz, "%s%s r%d, #0x%x", op, postfix,
+ ins->dst_reg, ins->imm);
+ case BPF_ABS:
+ return snprintf(buffer, bufsz, "%s%s r%d, [%d]", op, postfix,
+ ins->dst_reg, ins->imm);
+ case BPF_IND:
+ return snprintf(buffer, bufsz, "%s%s r%d, [r%u + %d]", op, postfix,
+ ins->dst_reg, ins->src_reg, ins->imm);
+ default:
+ return snprintf(buffer, bufsz, "// BUG: LD opcode 0x%02x in eBPF insns",
+ ins->code);
+ }
+ case BPF_LDX:
+ op = "ldx";
+ postfix = size_tbl[BPF_SIZE_INDEX(ins->code)];
+ if (BPF_MODE(ins->code) == BPF_MEM)
+ return snprintf(buffer, bufsz, "%s%s r%d, [r%u + %d]", op, postfix,
+ ins->dst_reg, ins->src_reg, ins->off);
+ else
+ return snprintf(buffer, bufsz, "// BUG: LDX opcode 0x%02x in eBPF insns",
+ ins->code);
+ case BPF_ST:
+ op = "st";
+ postfix = size_tbl[BPF_SIZE_INDEX(ins->code)];
+ if (BPF_MODE(ins->code) == BPF_MEM)
+ return snprintf(buffer, bufsz, "%s%s [r%d + %d], #0x%x", op, postfix,
+ ins->dst_reg, ins->off, ins->imm);
+ else
+ return snprintf(buffer, bufsz, "// BUG: ST opcode 0x%02x in eBPF insns",
+ ins->code);
+ case BPF_STX:
+ switch (BPF_MODE(ins->code)) {
+ case BPF_MEM:
+ op = "stx";
+ break;
+ case EBPF_ATOMIC:
+ op = atomic_op(ins->imm);
if (op == NULL)
- fprintf(f, "invalid jump opcode: %#x\n", ins->code);
- else if (BPF_OP(ins->code) == BPF_JA)
- fprintf(f, "%s L%d%s\n", op, L(i, ins->off), warning);
- else if (BPF_OP(ins->code) == EBPF_CALL)
- /* Call of helper function with index in immediate. */
- fprintf(f, "%s #%u%s\n", op, ins->imm, warning);
- else if (BPF_OP(ins->code) == EBPF_EXIT)
- fprintf(f, "%s%s\n", op, warning);
- else if (BPF_SRC(ins->code) == BPF_X)
- fprintf(f, "%s r%u, r%u, L%d\n", op, ins->dst_reg,
- ins->src_reg, L(i, ins->off));
- else
- fprintf(f, "%s r%u, #0x%x, L%d\n", op, ins->dst_reg,
- ins->imm, L(i, ins->off));
+ return snprintf(buffer, bufsz,
+ "// BUG: ATOMIC operation 0x%x in eBPF insns", ins->imm);
break;
- case BPF_RET:
- fprintf(f, "// BUG: RET opcode 0x%02x in eBPF insns\n",
+ default:
+ return snprintf(buffer, bufsz, "// BUG: STX opcode 0x%02x in eBPF insns",
ins->code);
- break;
}
+ postfix = size_tbl[BPF_SIZE_INDEX(ins->code)];
+ return snprintf(buffer, bufsz, "%s%s [r%d + %d], r%u", op, postfix,
+ ins->dst_reg, ins->off, ins->src_reg);
+ case BPF_JMP:
+ op = jump_tbl[BPF_OP_INDEX(ins->code)];
+ if (op == NULL)
+ return snprintf(buffer, bufsz, "invalid jump opcode: %#x", ins->code);
+
+ if ((flags & RTE_BPF_FORMAT_FLAG_ABSOLUTE_JUMPS) != 0)
+ snprintf(jump, sizeof(jump), "L%d", pc + 1 + ins->off);
+ else
+ snprintf(jump, sizeof(jump), "%+d", (int)ins->off);
+
+ if (ins->src_reg != 0)
+ /* Not yet supported variation with non-zero src w/o condition. */
+ warning = ", src != 0";
+ switch (BPF_OP(ins->code)) {
+ case BPF_JA:
+ return snprintf(buffer, bufsz, "%s %s%s", op, jump, warning);
+ case EBPF_CALL:
+ /* Call of helper function with index in immediate. */
+ return snprintf(buffer, bufsz, "%s #%u%s", op, ins->imm, warning);
+ case EBPF_EXIT:
+ return snprintf(buffer, bufsz, "%s%s", op, warning);
+ }
+
+ if (BPF_SRC(ins->code) == BPF_X)
+ return snprintf(buffer, bufsz, "%s r%u, r%u, %s", op, ins->dst_reg,
+ ins->src_reg, jump);
+ else
+ return snprintf(buffer, bufsz, "%s r%u, #0x%x, %s", op, ins->dst_reg,
+ ins->imm, jump);
+ case BPF_RET:
+ return snprintf(buffer, bufsz, "// BUG: RET opcode 0x%02x in eBPF insns",
+ ins->code);
+ }
+}
+
+RTE_EXPORT_EXPERIMENTAL_SYMBOL(rte_bpf_format, 26.07)
+int
+rte_bpf_format(char *buffer, size_t bufsz, const struct ebpf_insn *ins,
+ uint32_t pc, uint32_t flags)
+{
+ if ((flags & RTE_BPF_FORMAT_FLAG_HEXADECIMAL) != 0)
+ return format_hexadecimal(buffer, bufsz, ins, flags);
+ else
+ return format_disassembly(buffer, bufsz, ins, pc, flags);
+}
+
+RTE_EXPORT_SYMBOL(rte_bpf_dump)
+void rte_bpf_dump(FILE *f, const struct ebpf_insn *buf, uint32_t len)
+{
+ uint32_t i;
+ char buffer[256];
+
+ for (i = 0; i < len; ++i) {
+ const struct ebpf_insn *ins = buf + i;
+
+ format_disassembly(buffer, sizeof(buffer), ins, i,
+ RTE_BPF_FORMAT_FLAG_DISASSEMBLY |
+ RTE_BPF_FORMAT_FLAG_ABSOLUTE_JUMPS);
+ fprintf(f, " L%u:\t%s\n", i, buffer);
+ i += rte_bpf_insn_is_wide(ins);
}
}
diff --git a/lib/bpf/rte_bpf.h b/lib/bpf/rte_bpf.h
index 413ccf049755..b6c232704a56 100644
--- a/lib/bpf/rte_bpf.h
+++ b/lib/bpf/rte_bpf.h
@@ -30,6 +30,23 @@ extern "C" {
/** Mask with all supported `RTE_BPF_EXEC_FLAG_*` flags set. */
#define RTE_BPF_EXEC_FLAG_MASK RTE_BPF_EXEC_FLAG_JIT
+/* Format instructions as assembler. */
+#define RTE_BPF_FORMAT_FLAG_DISASSEMBLY 0
+/* Format instructions as hexadecimal. */
+#define RTE_BPF_FORMAT_FLAG_HEXADECIMAL RTE_BIT32(0)
+
+/* Only valid in disassembly mode. */
+/* Format jump offsets relative to the next instruction. */
+#define RTE_BPF_FORMAT_FLAG_RELATIVE_JUMPS 0
+/* Format jump targets relative to the start of the program. */
+#define RTE_BPF_FORMAT_FLAG_ABSOLUTE_JUMPS RTE_BIT32(1)
+
+/* Only valid in hexadecimal mode. */
+/* Format full hexadecimal representation of wide instructions. */
+#define RTE_BPF_FORMAT_FLAG_AUTO_WIDE 0
+/* Format as hexadecimal only first half of wide instructions. */
+#define RTE_BPF_FORMAT_FLAG_NEVER_WIDE RTE_BIT32(2)
+
/**
* Possible types for function/BPF program arguments.
*/
@@ -391,6 +408,40 @@ __rte_experimental
int
rte_bpf_get_jit_ex(const struct rte_bpf *bpf, struct rte_bpf_jit_ex *jit);
+/**
+ * Determine instruction width.
+ *
+ * @return
+ * True if ins points to a wide (128-bit) instruction.
+ */
+__rte_experimental
+bool
+rte_bpf_insn_is_wide(const struct ebpf_insn *ins);
+
+/**
+ * Print eBPF instruction into a buffer.
+ *
+ * Semantics of handling buffer size repeats those of snprintf.
+ *
+ * @param buffer
+ * Output buffer (may be NULL if bufsz is zero).
+ * @param bufsz
+ * Output buffer size.
+ * @param ins
+ * Narrow or wide (depending on opcode) eBPF instruction. That is, when
+ * `rte_bpf_insn_is_wide` is true `ins[1]` is also accessed.
+ * @param pc
+ * Current instruction number for displaying absolute jump targets.
+ * @param flags
+ * Bitwise-OR combination of `RTE_BPF_FORMAT_FLAG_*` values.
+ * @return
+ * Number of characters to be written excluding terminating zero.
+ */
+__rte_experimental
+int
+rte_bpf_format(char *buffer, size_t bufsz, const struct ebpf_insn *ins,
+ uint32_t pc, uint32_t flags);
+
/**
* Dump epf instructions to a file.
*
--
2.43.0
^ permalink raw reply related
* [PATCH v4 00/24] bpf: test and fix issues in verifier
From: Marat Khalili @ 2026-06-23 14:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: dev
In-Reply-To: <20260612104743.6465-1-marat.khalili@huawei.com>
This patchset addresses numerous bugs in the BPF verifier's abstract
interpretation logic and introduces a new validation debugger API to
enable precise, robust testing of the verifier itself.
While the existing DPDK eBPF verifier is capable of checking basic
execution graph loops and dead code, the mathematical tracking of
register bounds (both signed and unsigned) contained flaws resulting in
false positives and false negatives, undefined behavior, and hardware
exceptions such as SIGFPE during validation.
To resolve these issues and ensure they do not regress, this patchset
first introduces the "Validation Debugger API"
(`rte_bpf_validate_debug_*`). This gdb-like interface allows setting
breakpoints and catchpoints during the validation process to inspect the
verifier's internal state.
Using this new API, a comprehensive test harness
(`app/test/test_bpf_validate.c`) was created to formally check the
abstract domains of instructions across all their valid branches. The
remainder of the patchset incrementally fixes the math and bounds logic
for individual eBPF instructions, using the new tests to prove the
correctness of the fixes.
This debugger API also lays the foundation for an interactive eBPF
validation debugger to be introduced in the future.
Series-Depends-on: series-38434 ("bpf: introduce extensible load API")
v4:
No code changes (almost).
* Removed compilation error on presence of LIST_FOREACH_SAFE in Linux.
* Rebased on fresh main with prerequisite series merged.
* Moved new API documentation changes to the introducing commit.
* Made new release notes one section instead of two.
* Corrected documentation wording slightly to prevent confusion between
the debugging API and a debugger application (not part of this series).
v3:
* Rebased on v5 of the prerequisite series and updated Depends-on tags.
* Replaced a hardcoded compiler attribute with __rte_format_printf.
v2:
* Addressed AI reviewer comments:
* replaced `false` and `true` with 0 and 1 in some API descriptions
and invocations that multiplex boolean and negative error code;
* made some previously implicit casts explicit;
* moved new enum value to the end of the definition.
* Added Acked-by and Depends-on tags to all individual commits to
align with patchwork requirements.
* Added Reported-by tags to fixes of issues discovered by Claudia Cauli
using a formal methods framework.
Marat Khalili (24):
bpf: format and dump jlt, jle, jslt, and jsle
bpf: add format instruction function
bpf/validate: break on error in evaluate
bpf/validate: expand comments in evaluate cycle
bpf/validate: introduce debugging interface
bpf/validate: fix BPF_ADD of pointer to a scalar
bpf/validate: fix BPF_LDX | EBPF_DW signed range
test/bpf_validate: add setup and basic tests
test/bpf_validate: add harness for pointer tests
bpf/validate: fix EBPF_JSLT | BPF_X evaluation
bpf/validate: fix BPF_NEG of INT64_MIN and 0
bpf/validate: fix BPF_DIV and BPF_MOD signed part
bpf/validate: fix BPF_MUL ranges minimum typo
bpf/validate: fix BPF_MUL signed overflow UB
bpf/validate: fix BPF_JGT/EBPF_JSGT no-jump max
bpf/validate: fix BPF_JMP source range calculation
bpf/validate: fix BPF_JMP empty range handling
bpf/validate: fix BPF_AND min calculations
bpf/validate: fix BPF_LSH shift-out-of-bounds UB
bpf/validate: fix BPF_OR min calculations
bpf/validate: fix BPF_SUB signed max zero case
bpf/validate: fix BPF_XOR signed min calculation
bpf/validate: prevent overflow when building graph
doc: add release notes for BPF validation fixes
app/test/meson.build | 1 +
app/test/test_bpf.c | 99 ++
app/test/test_bpf_validate.c | 2271 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
doc/guides/prog_guide/bpf_lib.rst | 31 +
doc/guides/rel_notes/release_26_07.rst | 14 +-
lib/bpf/bpf_dump.c | 292 +--
lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c | 730 +++++++-
lib/bpf/bpf_validate.h | 60 +
lib/bpf/bpf_validate_debug.c | 659 +++++++
lib/bpf/bpf_validate_debug.h | 86 +
lib/bpf/bpf_value_set.c | 403 +++++
lib/bpf/bpf_value_set.h | 126 ++
lib/bpf/meson.build | 9 +-
lib/bpf/rte_bpf.h | 55 +
lib/bpf/rte_bpf_validate_debug.h | 377 ++++
15 files changed, 5015 insertions(+), 198 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 app/test/test_bpf_validate.c
create mode 100644 lib/bpf/bpf_validate.h
create mode 100644 lib/bpf/bpf_validate_debug.c
create mode 100644 lib/bpf/bpf_validate_debug.h
create mode 100644 lib/bpf/bpf_value_set.c
create mode 100644 lib/bpf/bpf_value_set.h
create mode 100644 lib/bpf/rte_bpf_validate_debug.h
--
2.43.0
^ permalink raw reply
* [PATCH 3/3] vhost: remove use of strncpy
From: Bruce Richardson @ 2026-06-23 14:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dev
Cc: Bruce Richardson, stable, Maxime Coquelin, Chenbo Xia,
Yuanhan Liu, David Marchand, Stephen Hemminger
In-Reply-To: <20260623141930.704771-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com>
The strlcpy is preferred over use of strncpy, which removes the need to
try and explicitly null-terminate some string buffers. We can also
simplify some name length handling as a result of this, as we no longer
need to use strnlen to clamp the length before calling the set_ifname
function.
Fixes: a277c7159876 ("vhost: refactor code structure")
Fixes: 0adb8eccc6a6 ("vhost: add VDUSE device creation and destruction")
Fixes: c171a2d5ff17 ("vhost: use strlcpy instead of strncpy")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org
Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
---
lib/vhost/socket.c | 4 +---
lib/vhost/vduse.c | 2 +-
lib/vhost/vhost.c | 12 +++---------
lib/vhost/vhost.h | 2 +-
4 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/vhost/socket.c b/lib/vhost/socket.c
index 70e582a18d..0943b3e9bb 100644
--- a/lib/vhost/socket.c
+++ b/lib/vhost/socket.c
@@ -207,7 +207,6 @@ static void
vhost_user_add_connection(int fd, struct vhost_user_socket *vsocket)
{
int vid;
- size_t size;
struct vhost_user_connection *conn;
int ret;
struct virtio_net *dev;
@@ -226,8 +225,7 @@ vhost_user_add_connection(int fd, struct vhost_user_socket *vsocket)
goto err;
}
- size = strnlen(vsocket->path, PATH_MAX);
- vhost_set_ifname(vid, vsocket->path, size);
+ vhost_set_ifname(vid, vsocket->path);
vhost_setup_virtio_net(vid, vsocket->use_builtin_virtio_net,
vsocket->net_compliant_ol_flags, vsocket->stats_enabled,
diff --git a/lib/vhost/vduse.c b/lib/vhost/vduse.c
index 0b5d158fee..f8a4a8edcb 100644
--- a/lib/vhost/vduse.c
+++ b/lib/vhost/vduse.c
@@ -796,7 +796,7 @@ vduse_device_create(const char *path, bool compliant_ol_flags, bool extbuf, bool
goto out_dev_destroy;
}
- strncpy(dev->ifname, path, IF_NAME_SZ - 1);
+ strlcpy(dev->ifname, path, sizeof(dev->ifname));
dev->vduse_ctrl_fd = control_fd;
dev->vduse_dev_fd = dev_fd;
diff --git a/lib/vhost/vhost.c b/lib/vhost/vhost.c
index 7e68b2c3be..fde8acb00c 100644
--- a/lib/vhost/vhost.c
+++ b/lib/vhost/vhost.c
@@ -776,20 +776,15 @@ vhost_attach_vdpa_device(int vid, struct rte_vdpa_device *vdpa_dev)
}
void
-vhost_set_ifname(int vid, const char *if_name, unsigned int if_len)
+vhost_set_ifname(int vid, const char *if_name)
{
struct virtio_net *dev;
- unsigned int len;
dev = get_device(vid);
if (dev == NULL)
return;
- len = if_len > sizeof(dev->ifname) ?
- sizeof(dev->ifname) : if_len;
-
- strncpy(dev->ifname, if_name, len);
- dev->ifname[sizeof(dev->ifname) - 1] = '\0';
+ strlcpy(dev->ifname, if_name, sizeof(dev->ifname));
}
void
@@ -915,8 +910,7 @@ rte_vhost_get_ifname(int vid, char *buf, size_t len)
len = RTE_MIN(len, sizeof(dev->ifname));
- strncpy(buf, dev->ifname, len);
- buf[len - 1] = '\0';
+ strlcpy(buf, dev->ifname, len);
return 0;
}
diff --git a/lib/vhost/vhost.h b/lib/vhost/vhost.h
index ee61f7415e..1c957d2929 100644
--- a/lib/vhost/vhost.h
+++ b/lib/vhost/vhost.h
@@ -877,7 +877,7 @@ int alloc_vring_queue(struct virtio_net *dev, uint32_t vring_idx);
void vhost_attach_vdpa_device(int vid, struct rte_vdpa_device *dev);
-void vhost_set_ifname(int, const char *if_name, unsigned int if_len);
+void vhost_set_ifname(int, const char *if_name);
void vhost_setup_virtio_net(int vid, bool enable, bool legacy_ol_flags, bool stats_enabled,
bool support_iommu);
void vhost_enable_extbuf(int vid);
--
2.53.0
^ permalink raw reply related
* [PATCH 2/3] eventdev: improve bounds checks for names in adapter create
From: Bruce Richardson @ 2026-06-23 14:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dev; +Cc: Bruce Richardson, stable, Naga Harish K S V, Jerin Jacob,
Nikhil Rao
In-Reply-To: <20260623141930.704771-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com>
The bounds checks for snprintf and then strncpy used different constant
defines, which happened to resolve to the same value (32). Make this
code more resilient by using sizeof() operator rather than the defines,
and replace use of strncpy with the better strlcpy.
Fixes: a3bbf2e09756 ("eventdev: add eth Tx adapter implementation")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org
Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
---
lib/eventdev/rte_event_eth_tx_adapter.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/eventdev/rte_event_eth_tx_adapter.c b/lib/eventdev/rte_event_eth_tx_adapter.c
index 91c7be55c7..d531da5d69 100644
--- a/lib/eventdev/rte_event_eth_tx_adapter.c
+++ b/lib/eventdev/rte_event_eth_tx_adapter.c
@@ -748,7 +748,7 @@ txa_service_adapter_create_ext(uint8_t id, struct rte_eventdev *dev,
return -EINVAL;
socket_id = dev->data->socket_id;
- snprintf(mem_name, TXA_MEM_NAME_LEN,
+ snprintf(mem_name, sizeof(mem_name),
"rte_event_eth_txa_%d",
id);
@@ -767,7 +767,7 @@ txa_service_adapter_create_ext(uint8_t id, struct rte_eventdev *dev,
txa->id = id;
txa->eventdev_id = dev->data->dev_id;
txa->socket_id = socket_id;
- strncpy(txa->mem_name, mem_name, TXA_SERVICE_NAME_LEN);
+ strlcpy(txa->mem_name, mem_name, sizeof(txa->mem_name));
txa->conf_cb = conf_cb;
txa->conf_arg = conf_arg;
txa->service_id = TXA_INVALID_SERVICE_ID;
--
2.53.0
^ permalink raw reply related
* [PATCH 1/3] ethdev: remove use of strncpy
From: Bruce Richardson @ 2026-06-23 14:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dev
Cc: Bruce Richardson, stable, Thomas Monjalon, Andrew Rybchenko,
Harman Kalra, Ferruh Yigit
In-Reply-To: <20260623141930.704771-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com>
The use of strncpy is not generally recommended, so replace it in code
tokenizing the representor list. Since its use in the function is not
involving null-terminated strings (we know that copied block will
not involve a null value in it), we can replace strncpy with memcpy
rather than a string function. This keeps the original intent of the
code.
For extra safety, also add in an explicit bounds check on the length
value before doing the memcpy.
Fixes: 9a9eb104edf6 ("ethdev: parse multiple representor devargs")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org
Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
---
lib/ethdev/ethdev_driver.c | 7 ++++++-
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/lib/ethdev/ethdev_driver.c b/lib/ethdev/ethdev_driver.c
index 70ddce5bfc..4043ce898f 100644
--- a/lib/ethdev/ethdev_driver.c
+++ b/lib/ethdev/ethdev_driver.c
@@ -583,10 +583,15 @@ eth_dev_tokenise_representor_list(char *p_val, struct rte_eth_devargs *eth_devar
return devargs;
}
+ /* len - 2 strips the outer '[' and ']'; guard against underflow and overflow */
+ if (len < 2 || (len - 2) >= BUFSIZ) {
+ RTE_ETHDEV_LOG_LINE(ERR, "Representor list too long or malformed: %s", p_val);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
memset(str, 0, BUFSIZ);
memset(da_val, 0, BUFSIZ);
/* Remove the exterior [] of the consolidated list */
- strncpy(str, &p_val[1], len - 2);
+ memcpy(str, &p_val[1], len - 2);
while (1) {
if (str[i] == '\0') {
if (da_val[0] != '\0') {
--
2.53.0
^ permalink raw reply related
* [PATCH 0/3] lib: remove use of strncpy
From: Bruce Richardson @ 2026-06-23 14:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dev; +Cc: Bruce Richardson
Taking a lead from the kernel, which has just finished a multi-year
effort to remove use of strncpy[1], rework DPDK to remove use of the
same function. This series removes all remaining uses of strncpy
in lib directory.
[1] https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-7.2-Drops-strncpy
Bruce Richardson (3):
ethdev: remove use of strncpy
eventdev: improve bounds checks for names in adapter create
vhost: remove use of strncpy
lib/ethdev/ethdev_driver.c | 7 ++++++-
lib/eventdev/rte_event_eth_tx_adapter.c | 4 ++--
lib/vhost/socket.c | 4 +---
lib/vhost/vduse.c | 2 +-
lib/vhost/vhost.c | 12 +++---------
lib/vhost/vhost.h | 2 +-
6 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
--
2.53.0
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v5] graph: add optional profiling stats
From: saeed bishara @ 2026-06-23 14:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Morten Brørup
Cc: Jerin Jacob, dev, Jerin Jacob, Kiran Kumar K, Nithin Dabilpuram,
Zhirun Yan
In-Reply-To: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35F6593A@smartserver.smartshare.dk>
> > also, instead of adding cacheline for this profiling data, can we
> > share with line 1 that used solely for xstats?
>
> This profiling data is 4 indexes * 2 values * 8-byte fields, so one cache line in itself.
make sense.
btw, the default value of RTE_GRAPH_BURST_SIZE is 256, I suspect that
real applications will enforce smaller burst when pulling from input
devices (e.g. 32). Do you expect such cases to change
RTE_GRAPH_BURST_SIZE?
^ permalink raw reply
* DPDK Release Status Meeting 2026-06-23
From: Mcnamara, John @ 2026-06-23 14:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dev@dpdk.org; +Cc: Thomas Monjalon, David Marchand
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2792 bytes --]
Release status meeting minutes 2026-06-23
=========================================
Agenda:
- Release Dates
- Subtrees
- Roadmaps
- LTS
- Defects
- Opens
Participants:
- ARM
- Broadcom
- Debian
- Intel
- Marvell
- Nvidia
- Red Hat
- Stephen Hemminger
Release Dates
-------------
The following are the proposed working dates for 27.03:
| Date | Milestone | Description |
|-----------------|------------------|---------------------------------|
| 30 April 2026 | RFC/v1 patches | Proposal deadline |
| 11 June 2026 | 26.07-rc1 | API freeze |
| 25 June 2026 | 26.07-rc2 | PMD features freeze |
| 02 July 2026 | 26.07-rc3 | Builtin apps features freeze |
| 9 July 2026 | 26.07-rc4 | Documentation ready |
| 16 July 2026 | 26.07.0 | Release |
See https://core.dpdk.org/roadmap/
Subtrees
--------
- next-net
- 76 patches ready for main.
- 26 patches in review/waiting.
- next-net-intel
- 6 patches merged, ready for main
- Small backlog.
- next-net-mlx
- Some patches getting ready for pull.
- next-broadcom
- Most patches merged.
- 1-2 in backlog.
- next-net-mvl
- PR sent.
- next-eventdev
- No change.
- next-baseband
- Nothing pending.
- next-virtio
- Nothing pending.
- next-crypto
- No update.
- next-dts
- No update.
- main
- BUS refactoring.
- DMA driver to review.
- Started pulling trees for RC2.
- RC2 targeting June 29 2026.
Other
-----
- None.
LTS
---
See also: https://core.dpdk.org/roadmap/#stable
LTS versions ongoing/released:
- 25.11.3 - In progress.
- 24.11.7 - In progress.
- 23.11.8 - In progress.
Older releases:
- 20.11.10 - Will only be updated with CVE and critical fixes.
- 19.11.14 - Will only be updated with CVE and critical fixes.
- Distros
- Debian 13 contains DPDK v24.11
- Ubuntu 25.04 contains DPDK v24.11
- Ubuntu 24.04 LTS contains DPDK v23.11
- RHEL 9 contains DPDK 24.11
Defects
-------
- Bugzilla links, 'Bugs', added for hosted projects
- https://www.dpdk.org/hosted-projects/
DPDK Release Status Meetings
----------------------------
The DPDK Release Status Meeting is intended for DPDK Committers to discuss the
status of the main tree and sub-trees, and for project managers to track
progress or milestone dates.
The meeting occurs on every Tuesday at 14:30 DST over Jitsi on https://meet.jit.si/DPDK
You don't need an invite to join the meeting but if you want a calendar reminder just
send an email to "John McNamara <john.mcnamara@intel.com>" for the invite.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 35226 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply
* RE: [PATCH v3 6/6] test/bpf: check that bpf_convert can be JIT'd
From: Marat Khalili @ 2026-06-23 13:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Hemminger, dev@dpdk.org; +Cc: Konstantin Ananyev
In-Reply-To: <20260621162524.82690-7-stephen@networkplumber.org>
Thank you for working on this, please see some comments inline.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> Sent: Sunday 21 June 2026 17:24
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>; Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com>;
> Marat Khalili <marat.khalili@huawei.com>
> Subject: [PATCH v3 6/6] test/bpf: check that bpf_convert can be JIT'd
>
> Add followup in bpf conversion tests to make sure resulting
> code was also run through JIT and that JIT produces
> same results as non-JIT.
>
> Reduce log output to make it easier to match which
> expression might be causing issues.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> ---
> app/test/test_bpf.c | 94 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 79 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/app/test/test_bpf.c b/app/test/test_bpf.c
> index 3a88434c3c..973dd7d659 100644
> --- a/app/test/test_bpf.c
> +++ b/app/test/test_bpf.c
> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
> #include <inttypes.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
>
> +#include <rte_byteorder.h>
> #include <rte_memory.h>
> #include <rte_debug.h>
> #include <rte_hexdump.h>
> @@ -32,6 +33,7 @@ test_bpf(void)
> #include <rte_bpf.h>
> #include <rte_ether.h>
> #include <rte_ip.h>
> +#include <rte_udp.h>
>
>
> /* Tests of most simple BPF programs (no instructions, one instruction etc.) */
> @@ -4529,6 +4531,7 @@ test_bpf_match(pcap_t *pcap, const char *str,
> int ret = -1;
> uint64_t rc;
>
> + printf("%s '%s'\n", __func__, str);
> if (pcap_compile(pcap, &fcode, str, 1, PCAP_NETMASK_UNKNOWN)) {
> printf("%s@%d: pcap_compile(\"%s\") failed: %s;\n",
> __func__, __LINE__, str, pcap_geterr(pcap));
> @@ -4550,6 +4553,24 @@ test_bpf_match(pcap_t *pcap, const char *str,
> }
>
> rc = rte_bpf_exec(bpf, mb);
> +#if defined(RTE_ARCH_X86_64) || defined(RTE_ARCH_ARM64)
We are going to have a few of these lines, I think something like
RTE_BPF_JIT_SUPPORTED is warranted.
> + {
> + struct rte_bpf_jit jit;
> +
> + rte_bpf_get_jit(bpf, &jit);
Out of abundance of caution I would also prefill jit with zeroes and check the
return code here.
> + if (jit.func == NULL) {
> + printf("%s@%d: no JIT generated\n", __func__, __LINE__);
> + goto error;
> + }
> +
> + fflush(stdout);
> + uint64_t rc_jit = jit.func(mb);
> + if (rc_jit != rc) {
> + printf("%s@%d: JIT return code does not match\n", __func__, __LINE__);
> + goto error;
> + }
> + }
> +#endif
> /* The return code from bpf capture filter is non-zero if matched */
> ret = (rc == 0);
> error:
> @@ -4560,23 +4581,16 @@ test_bpf_match(pcap_t *pcap, const char *str,
> return ret;
> }
>
> -/* Basic sanity test can we match a IP packet */
> -static int
> -test_bpf_filter_sanity(pcap_t *pcap)
> +/* Setup mbuf for filter test */
> +static void
> +dummy_ip_prep(void *data, uint16_t plen)
> {
> - const uint32_t plen = 100;
> - struct rte_mbuf mb, *m;
> - uint8_t tbuf[RTE_MBUF_DEFAULT_BUF_SIZE];
> struct {
> struct rte_ether_hdr eth_hdr;
> struct rte_ipv4_hdr ip_hdr;
> - } *hdr;
> + struct rte_udp_hdr udp_hdr;
> + } *hdr = data;
>
> - memset(&mb, 0, sizeof(mb));
> - dummy_mbuf_prep(&mb, tbuf, sizeof(tbuf), plen);
> - m = &mb;
> -
> - hdr = rte_pktmbuf_mtod(m, typeof(hdr));
> hdr->eth_hdr = (struct rte_ether_hdr) {
> .dst_addr.addr_bytes = { 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff },
> .ether_type = rte_cpu_to_be_16(RTE_ETHER_TYPE_IPV4),
> @@ -4589,13 +4603,32 @@ test_bpf_filter_sanity(pcap_t *pcap)
> .src_addr = rte_cpu_to_be_32(RTE_IPV4_LOOPBACK),
> .dst_addr = rte_cpu_to_be_32(RTE_IPV4_BROADCAST),
> };
> + hdr->udp_hdr = (struct rte_udp_hdr) {
> + .src_port = rte_rand_max(UINT16_MAX),
> + .dst_port = rte_cpu_to_be_16(9), /* discard port */
> + .dgram_len = rte_cpu_to_be_16(plen - sizeof(struct rte_ipv4_hdr)),
> + .dgram_cksum = 0,
> + };
> +}
> +
> +
> +/* Basic sanity test can we match a IP packet */
> +static int
> +test_bpf_filter_sanity(pcap_t *pcap)
> +{
> + struct rte_mbuf mb = { 0 };
> + uint8_t tbuf[RTE_MBUF_DEFAULT_BUF_SIZE];
> + const uint32_t plen = 100;
> +
> + dummy_mbuf_prep(&mb, tbuf, sizeof(tbuf), plen);
> + dummy_ip_prep(rte_pktmbuf_mtod(&mb, void *), plen);
>
> - if (test_bpf_match(pcap, "ip", m) != 0) {
> + if (test_bpf_match(pcap, "ip", &mb) != 0) {
> printf("%s@%d: filter \"ip\" doesn't match test data\n",
> __func__, __LINE__);
> return -1;
> }
> - if (test_bpf_match(pcap, "not ip", m) == 0) {
> + if (test_bpf_match(pcap, "not ip", &mb) == 0) {
Not a new bug, but this condition should be for non-positive, not just zero.
> printf("%s@%d: filter \"not ip\" does match test data\n",
> __func__, __LINE__);
> return -1;
> @@ -4648,10 +4681,15 @@ static const char * const sample_filters[] = {
> static int
> test_bpf_filter(pcap_t *pcap, const char *s)
> {
> + struct rte_mbuf mb = { 0 };
> + uint8_t tbuf[RTE_MBUF_DEFAULT_BUF_SIZE];
> + const uint32_t plen = 100;
> struct bpf_program fcode;
> struct rte_bpf_prm *prm = NULL;
> struct rte_bpf *bpf = NULL;
> + int ret = -1;
>
> + printf("%s '%s'\n", __func__, s);
> if (pcap_compile(pcap, &fcode, s, 1, PCAP_NETMASK_UNKNOWN)) {
> printf("%s@%d: pcap_compile('%s') failed: %s;\n",
> __func__, __LINE__, s, pcap_geterr(pcap));
> @@ -4665,8 +4703,10 @@ test_bpf_filter(pcap_t *pcap, const char *s)
> goto error;
> }
>
> +#ifdef DEBUG
> printf("bpf convert for \"%s\" produced:\n", s);
> rte_bpf_dump(stdout, prm->ins, prm->nb_ins);
> +#endif
>
> bpf = rte_bpf_load(prm);
> if (bpf == NULL) {
> @@ -4675,6 +4715,30 @@ test_bpf_filter(pcap_t *pcap, const char *s)
> goto error;
> }
>
> + dummy_mbuf_prep(&mb, tbuf, sizeof(tbuf), plen);
> + dummy_ip_prep(rte_pktmbuf_mtod(&mb, void *), plen);
> +
> + uint64_t rc = rte_bpf_exec(bpf, &mb);
Would it be hard to check the result against a known correct answer?
> +#if defined(RTE_ARCH_X86_64) || defined(RTE_ARCH_ARM64)
> + {
> + struct rte_bpf_jit jit;
> +
> + rte_bpf_get_jit(bpf, &jit);
Same suggestion regarding zeroing jit and check return code here.
> + if (jit.func == NULL) {
> + printf("%s@%d: no JIT generated\n", __func__, __LINE__);
> + goto error;
> + }
> +
> + fflush(stdout);
> + uint64_t rc_jit = jit.func(&mb);
> + if (rc_jit != rc) {
> + printf("%s@%d: JIT return code does not match\n", __func__, __LINE__);
> + goto error;
> + }
> + }
> +#endif
> + ret = 0;
> +
Are `test_bpf_filter` and `test_bpf_filter_sanity` substantially different any
more, or could they just be merged?
> error:
> if (bpf)
> rte_bpf_destroy(bpf);
> @@ -4685,7 +4749,7 @@ test_bpf_filter(pcap_t *pcap, const char *s)
>
> rte_free(prm);
> pcap_freecode(&fcode);
> - return (bpf == NULL) ? -1 : 0;
> + return ret;
> }
>
> static int
> --
> 2.53.0
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v4] pcapng: add user-supplied timestamp support
From: Stephen Hemminger @ 2026-06-23 13:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dawid Wesierski; +Cc: dev, mb, Marek Kasiewicz
In-Reply-To: <20260623141302.486601-1-dawid.wesierski@intel.com>
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 10:10:11 -0400
Dawid Wesierski <dawid.wesierski@intel.com> wrote:
> +/*
> + * Compatibility wrapper: captures current TSC (converted at write time).
> + * Equivalent to rte_pcapng_copy_ts(..., 0).
> + */
> +RTE_EXPORT_SYMBOL(rte_pcapng_copy)
> +struct rte_mbuf *
> +rte_pcapng_copy(uint16_t port_id, uint32_t queue,
> + const struct rte_mbuf *md,
> + struct rte_mempool *mp,
> + uint32_t length,
> + enum rte_pcapng_direction direction,
> + const char *comment)
> +{
> + return rte_pcapng_copy_ts(port_id, queue, md, mp, length, direction,
> + comment, 0);
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Convert a TSC value to nanoseconds since the Unix epoch using the
> + * calibrated clock of the capture file. Uses the same pre-computed
> + * reciprocal multiplier as the internal write path (no integer division).
> + */
> +RTE_EXPORT_EXPERIMENTAL_SYMBOL(rte_pcapng_tsc_to_ns, 26.07)
> +uint64_t
> +rte_pcapng_tsc_to_ns(const rte_pcapng_t *self, uint64_t tsc)
> +{
> + return tsc_to_ns_epoch(&self->clock, tsc);
> +}
Why not just use function versioning on rte_pcapng_copy() to add new parameter?
Also should add a coverage test app/test/test_pcapng.c
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH 0/5] add versioned symbols for recently stabilized APIs
From: David Marchand @ 2026-06-23 13:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dariusz Sosnowski, Thomas Monjalon, dpdk-techboard
Cc: Bruce Richardson, Andrew Rybchenko, Viacheslav Ovsiienko,
Bing Zhao, Ori Kam, Suanming Mou, Matan Azrad, dev
In-Reply-To: <20260623113752.1100072-1-dsosnowski@nvidia.com>
Hello Dariusz,
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 at 13:38, Dariusz Sosnowski <dsosnowski@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> Main goal of this patchset is to address https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1957
It is expected that experimental symbols may disappear overnight, and
this bug could also be closed as NOTABUG.
On the other hand, we do state in the doc that compatibility could be
provided when stabilising an experimental API, so ok.. let's try.
> but it also handles other recently stabilized symbols and has some minor fixes:
>
> - Patch 1 - Fix RTE_VERSION_EXPERIMENTAL_SYMBOL macro on clang.
Ouch... /me hides.
> - Patch 2 - Allow function versioning inside drivers.
> - Patch 3 - Version the function symbols stabilized in
> https://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/commit/?id=e8cab133645f5466ef75e511629add43b68a5027
> - Patch 4 - Introduce versioning macros for global variable symbols.
> - Patch 5 - Version the function and variable symbols stabilized in
> https://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/commit/?id=4ee2f5c1cedf9ee7f39afa667f71b07f4004ba5c
>
> Issue is still not fully fixed for stabilized global variables:
> rte_flow_dynf_metadata_offs and rte_flow_dynf_metadata_mask.
Well, symbol versioning is not something for variables.
Exposing global variables was a mistake from the start...
Those were exported for "performance" reasons as those are accessed
via inline helpers (but I am not sure there were benchmarks showing
the benefits).
I am for forbidding exports of global variables from now, unless some
really good performance benchmark is provided (@techboard for info).
Now, in practice for your issue, rather than reintroducing symbol
aliases (technical solution that I dropped when refactoring the
macros), I think we can do with some middle ground approach:
- leaving the inline helpers as "stable" (not __rte_experimental),
- restoring the EXPERIMENTAL version on the global variables, this
will restore the location of those symbols from the previous ABI pov,
and the checks won't catch this discrepancy anyway,
- during 26.11, drop the EXPERIMENTAL version on those variables,
In other words, stopping at your patch 3 of the series, then adding:
$ git diff
diff --git a/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.c b/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.c
index ec0fe08355..8bd21ccd31 100644
--- a/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.c
+++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.c
@@ -23,11 +23,11 @@
#define FLOW_LOG RTE_ETHDEV_LOG_LINE
/* Mbuf dynamic field name for metadata. */
-RTE_EXPORT_SYMBOL(rte_flow_dynf_metadata_offs)
+RTE_EXPORT_EXPERIMENTAL_SYMBOL(rte_flow_dynf_metadata_offs, 19.11)
int32_t rte_flow_dynf_metadata_offs = -1;
/* Mbuf dynamic field flag bit number for metadata. */
-RTE_EXPORT_SYMBOL(rte_flow_dynf_metadata_mask)
+RTE_EXPORT_EXPERIMENTAL_SYMBOL(rte_flow_dynf_metadata_mask, 19.11)
uint64_t rte_flow_dynf_metadata_mask;
/**
> Patch 4 and 5 address the bug for these global variables,
> by providing a single storage for both EXPERIMENTAL and
> DPDK_26 variable symbol versions.
> This is achieved through symbol aliasing.
> But this solution is limited only to executables compiled with clang.
>
> clang and gcc have a different default behavior regarding relocations
> of global variables exposed by shared libraries.
>
Yeah... not even thinking about adding MSVC in the list...
--
David Marchand
^ permalink raw reply related
page: next (older) | prev (newer) | latest
- recent:[subjects (threaded)|topics (new)|topics (active)]
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox