From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
To: alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com
Cc: naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com, sandipan@linux.ibm.com,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Subject: [PATCH bpf 2/2] bpf: test case to check whether src/dst regs got mangled by xadd
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 18:18:36 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180719161836.24468-3-daniel@iogearbox.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180719161836.24468-1-daniel@iogearbox.net>
We currently do not have such a test case in test_verifier selftests
but it's important to test under bpf_jit_enable=1 to make sure JIT
implementations do not mistakenly mess with src/dst reg for xadd/{w,dw}.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 40 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
index f5f7bcc..41106d9 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@ -12005,6 +12005,46 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP,
},
{
+ "xadd/w check whether src/dst got mangled, 1",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_0),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_7, BPF_REG_10),
+ BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -8),
+ BPF_STX_XADD(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -8),
+ BPF_STX_XADD(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -8),
+ BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_0, 3),
+ BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_7, BPF_REG_10, 2),
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_10, -8),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 42),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .result = ACCEPT,
+ .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
+ .retval = 3,
+ },
+ {
+ "xadd/w check whether src/dst got mangled, 2",
+ .insns = {
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 1),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_0),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_7, BPF_REG_10),
+ BPF_STX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -8),
+ BPF_STX_XADD(BPF_W, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -8),
+ BPF_STX_XADD(BPF_W, BPF_REG_10, BPF_REG_0, -8),
+ BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_0, 3),
+ BPF_JMP_REG(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_7, BPF_REG_10, 2),
+ BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_10, -8),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 42),
+ BPF_EXIT_INSN(),
+ },
+ .result = ACCEPT,
+ .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS,
+ .retval = 3,
+ },
+ {
"bpf_get_stack return R0 within range",
.insns = {
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_6, BPF_REG_1),
--
2.9.5
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-19 17:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-19 16:18 [PATCH bpf 0/2] BPF fix and test case Daniel Borkmann
2018-07-19 16:18 ` [PATCH bpf 1/2] bpf, ppc64: fix unexpected r0=0 exit path inside bpf_xadd Daniel Borkmann
2018-07-19 16:18 ` Daniel Borkmann [this message]
2018-07-19 23:12 ` [PATCH bpf 0/2] BPF fix and test case Alexei Starovoitov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180719161836.24468-3-daniel@iogearbox.net \
--to=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sandipan@linux.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).