From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_GIT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27D74C2D0CE for ; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 17:52:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1DAC20718 for ; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 17:52:56 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1577641977; bh=0ESp20aAUnS5jp+6ZSrygToxGhhWPBu3SxXHzuTJ01E=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:List-ID:From; b=pF/dIzyn0Chqa+mgXaaochuiT2L7XDOKT37xtlRNmNYPDTlErBO/LZhKwSxCbCtCA tT5mSAxZZAPEd/UAt23yZqb4AsKJRtheCYPrO/9JZO/EYjIwaB4Xf90M+WIaUQ+JhK SMrx9jZpistA1FwF3WlvobN5De3lHsSHKLJLFFac= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732367AbfL2Rwz (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Dec 2019 12:52:55 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:39426 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1732363AbfL2Rwz (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Dec 2019 12:52:55 -0500 Received: from localhost (83-86-89-107.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 72568207FF; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 17:52:53 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1577641973; bh=0ESp20aAUnS5jp+6ZSrygToxGhhWPBu3SxXHzuTJ01E=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Gx3TjpHEa172Zv53MSzDCMc4tdO+I9/KVGRyJqWazAcu9XtJXgY42M4QXzuzhSI30 v48YjwCEF7L/wEiEZL1YaZRQ5F4tsZZzO8OLrf8ban15EFTsLTJNsk5qPD9jKzgAdA MeRUgLnl2qgoVUx5QDOzDdCfmtYiKTuubkNspxNE= From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , stable@vger.kernel.org, Yonghong Song , Daniel Borkmann , Song Liu , Sasha Levin Subject: [PATCH 5.4 290/434] bpf, testing: Workaround a verifier failure for test_progs Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 18:25:43 +0100 Message-Id: <20191229172721.212406497@linuxfoundation.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.24.1 In-Reply-To: <20191229172702.393141737@linuxfoundation.org> References: <20191229172702.393141737@linuxfoundation.org> User-Agent: quilt/0.66 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org From: Yonghong Song [ Upstream commit b7a0d65d80a0c5034b366392624397a0915b7556 ] With latest llvm compiler, running test_progs will have the following verifier failure for test_sysctl_loop1.o: libbpf: load bpf program failed: Permission denied libbpf: -- BEGIN DUMP LOG --- libbpf: invalid indirect read from stack var_off (0x0; 0xff)+196 size 7 ... libbpf: -- END LOG -- libbpf: failed to load program 'cgroup/sysctl' libbpf: failed to load object 'test_sysctl_loop1.o' The related bytecode looks as below: 0000000000000308 LBB0_8: 97: r4 = r10 98: r4 += -288 99: r4 += r7 100: w8 &= 255 101: r1 = r10 102: r1 += -488 103: r1 += r8 104: r2 = 7 105: r3 = 0 106: call 106 107: w1 = w0 108: w1 += -1 109: if w1 > 6 goto -24 110: w0 += w8 111: r7 += 8 112: w8 = w0 113: if r7 != 224 goto -17 And source code: for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tcp_mem); ++i) { ret = bpf_strtoul(value + off, MAX_ULONG_STR_LEN, 0, tcp_mem + i); if (ret <= 0 || ret > MAX_ULONG_STR_LEN) return 0; off += ret & MAX_ULONG_STR_LEN; } Current verifier is not able to conclude that register w0 before '+' at insn 110 has a range of 1 to 7 and thinks it is from 0 - 255. This leads to more conservative range for w8 at insn 112, and later verifier complaint. Let us workaround this issue until we found a compiler and/or verifier solution. The workaround in this patch is to make variable 'ret' volatile, which will force a reload and then '&' operation to ensure better value range. With this patch, I got the below byte code for the loop: 0000000000000328 LBB0_9: 101: r4 = r10 102: r4 += -288 103: r4 += r7 104: w8 &= 255 105: r1 = r10 106: r1 += -488 107: r1 += r8 108: r2 = 7 109: r3 = 0 110: call 106 111: *(u32 *)(r10 - 64) = r0 112: r1 = *(u32 *)(r10 - 64) 113: if w1 s< 1 goto -28 114: r1 = *(u32 *)(r10 - 64) 115: if w1 s> 7 goto -30 116: r1 = *(u32 *)(r10 - 64) 117: w1 &= 7 118: w1 += w8 119: r7 += 8 120: w8 = w1 121: if r7 != 224 goto -21 Insn 117 did the '&' operation and we got more precise value range for 'w8' at insn 120. The test is happy then: #3/17 test_sysctl_loop1.o:OK Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann Acked-by: Song Liu Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20191107170045.2503480-1-yhs@fb.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_sysctl_loop1.c | 5 ++++- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_sysctl_loop1.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_sysctl_loop1.c index 608a06871572..d22e438198cf 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_sysctl_loop1.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_sysctl_loop1.c @@ -44,7 +44,10 @@ int sysctl_tcp_mem(struct bpf_sysctl *ctx) unsigned long tcp_mem[TCP_MEM_LOOPS] = {}; char value[MAX_VALUE_STR_LEN]; unsigned char i, off = 0; - int ret; + /* a workaround to prevent compiler from generating + * codes verifier cannot handle yet. + */ + volatile int ret; if (ctx->write) return 0; -- 2.20.1