From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: daniel@iogearbox.net (Daniel Borkmann) Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 20:39:22 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] arm64: bpf: fix div-by-zero case In-Reply-To: <563A5171.5070608@linaro.org> References: <1446620204-4228-1-git-send-email-zlim.lnx@gmail.com> <563A4C9A.7000002@linaro.org> <563A5171.5070608@linaro.org> Message-ID: <563A5EEA.6020007@iogearbox.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 11/04/2015 07:41 PM, Shi, Yang wrote: ... >>> Agreed, and we may need add one more test cases in test_bpf module to cover >>> MOD? >> >> Let me know if you have a test case ready :) > > Does the below change look like a valid test? > > + "MOD default X", > + .u.insns = { > + /* > + * A = 0x42 > + * A = A mod X ; this halt the filter execution if X is 0 > + * ret 0x42 > + */ > + BPF_STMT(BPF_LD | BPF_IMM, 0x42), > + BPF_STMT(BPF_ALU | BPF_MOD | BPF_X, 0), > + BPF_STMT(BPF_RET | BPF_K, 0x42), > + }, > + CLASSIC | FLAG_NO_DATA, > + {}, > + { {0x1, 0x0 } }, > + }, > + { > + "MOD default A", > + .u.insns = { > + /* > + * A = A mod 1 > + * ret A > + */ > + BPF_STMT(BPF_ALU | BPF_MOD | BPF_K, 0x1), > + BPF_STMT(BPF_RET | BPF_A, 0x0), > + }, > + CLASSIC | FLAG_NO_DATA, > + {}, > + { {0x1, 0x0 } }, > + }, > > My test result with it: > test_bpf: #284 MOD default X jited:1 ret 66 != 0 FAIL (1 times) > test_bpf: #285 MOD default A jited:1 102 PASS > > If it looks right, I will post a patch to add the test cases. Looks good to me. Thanks, Daniel