From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexei Starovoitov Subject: [PATCH bpf] selftests/bpf: fix test_align Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 15:02:00 -0800 Message-ID: <20180105230200.2183754-1-ast@fb.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Daniel Borkmann , To: "David S . Miller" Return-path: Received: from mx0b-00082601.pphosted.com ([67.231.153.30]:48490 "EHLO mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752116AbeAEXCD (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jan 2018 18:02:03 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0089730.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0089730.ppops.net (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id w05MwTkW019395 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 15:02:02 -0800 Received: from mail.thefacebook.com ([199.201.64.23]) by m0089730.ppops.net with ESMTP id 2fadqn0ua3-3 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 15:02:02 -0800 Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: since commit 82abbf8d2fc4 the verifier rejects the bit-wise arithmetic on pointers earlier. The test 'dubious pointer arithmetic' now has less output to match on. Adjust it. Fixes: 82abbf8d2fc4 ("bpf: do not allow root to mangle valid pointers") Reported-by: kernel test robot Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c | 22 +--------------------- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 21 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c index 8591c89c0828..471bbbdb94db 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c @@ -474,27 +474,7 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = { .result = REJECT, .matches = { {4, "R5=pkt(id=0,off=0,r=0,imm=0)"}, - /* ptr & 0x40 == either 0 or 0x40 */ - {5, "R5=inv(id=0,umax_value=64,var_off=(0x0; 0x40))"}, - /* ptr << 2 == unknown, (4n) */ - {7, "R5=inv(id=0,smax_value=9223372036854775804,umax_value=18446744073709551612,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffffffffffc))"}, - /* (4n) + 14 == (4n+2). We blow our bounds, because - * the add could overflow. - */ - {8, "R5=inv(id=0,var_off=(0x2; 0xfffffffffffffffc))"}, - /* Checked s>=0 */ - {10, "R5=inv(id=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372036854775806,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc))"}, - /* packet pointer + nonnegative (4n+2) */ - {12, "R6=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372036854775806,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc))"}, - {14, "R4=pkt(id=1,off=4,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372036854775806,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc))"}, - /* NET_IP_ALIGN + (4n+2) == (4n), alignment is fine. - * We checked the bounds, but it might have been able - * to overflow if the packet pointer started in the - * upper half of the address space. - * So we did not get a 'range' on R6, and the access - * attempt will fail. - */ - {16, "R6=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372036854775806,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc))"}, + /* R5 bitwise operator &= on pointer prohibited */ } }, { -- 2.9.5