From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf/verifier: enable ctx + const + 0.
Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 13:51:36 -0700
Message-ID: <20180502135136.3377a848@cakuba.netronome.com>
References: <1525108505-21175-1-git-send-email-u9012063@gmail.com>
        <20180501231652.ec563qza4c2nayhx@ast-mbp>
        <CALDO+SbDZ5BDz2Pt_66O96Y0ZtvpB78oKaaxtL-Toy_npr0_Zw@mail.gmail.com>
        <20180502045206.6aqm4koawyisgkxr@ast-mbp>
        <e4f93f62-d7f4-0851-d1c2-34a13c2af4c6@iogearbox.net>
        <CALDO+Sbx_fkW19N5F=vHfZCawoYCvoyS7jp_sTMp3Bz0FPQ8aw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>, Yifeng Sun <pkusunyifeng@gmail.com>
To: William Tu <u9012063@gmail.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-qk0-f173.google.com ([209.85.220.173]:38634 "EHLO
        mail-qk0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1750939AbeEBUvk (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Wed, 2 May 2018 16:51:40 -0400
Received: by mail-qk0-f173.google.com with SMTP id b39so12347427qkb.5
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 02 May 2018 13:51:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALDO+Sbx_fkW19N5F=vHfZCawoYCvoyS7jp_sTMp3Bz0FPQ8aw@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, 2 May 2018 10:54:56 -0700, William Tu wrote:
> On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 1:29 AM, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> wrote:
> > On 05/02/2018 06:52 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:  
> >> On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 09:35:29PM -0700, William Tu wrote:  
> >> Please test it with real program and you'll see crashes and garbage returned.  
> >
> > +1, *convert_ctx_access() use bpf_insn's off to determine what to rewrite,
> > so this is definitely buggy, and wasn't properly tested as it should have
> > been. The test case is also way too simple, just the LDX and then doing a
> > return 0 will get you past verifier, but won't give you anything in terms
> > of runtime testing that test_verifier is doing. A single test case for a
> > non trivial verifier change like this is also _completely insufficient_,
> > this really needs to test all sort of weird corner cases (involving out of
> > bounds accesses, overflows, etc).  
> 
> Thanks, now I understand.
> It's much more complicated than I thought.

FWIW NFP JIT would also have to be updated, similarly to
*convert_ctx_access() in mem_ldx_skb()/mem_ldx_xdp() we are currently
looking at insn.off.  In case you find a way to solve this.. :)