From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
To: stable@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org
Cc: andrii@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, martin.lau@linux.dev,
yhs@fb.com, mykolal@fb.com, luizcap@amazon.com,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH 6.1.y v2 4/6] selftests/bpf: make test_align selftest more robust
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2023 15:42:21 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230724124223.1176479-5-eddyz87@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230724124223.1176479-1-eddyz87@gmail.com>
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
[ Upstream commit 4f999b767769b76378c3616c624afd6f4bb0d99f ]
test_align selftest relies on BPF verifier log emitting register states
for specific instructions in expected format. Unfortunately, BPF
verifier precision backtracking log interferes with such expectations.
And instruction on which precision propagation happens sometimes don't
output full expected register states. This does indeed look like
something to be improved in BPF verifier, but is beyond the scope of
this patch set.
So to make test_align a bit more robust, inject few dummy R4 = R5
instructions which capture desired state of R5 and won't have precision
tracking logs on them. This fixes tests until we can improve BPF
verifier output in the presence of precision tracking.
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221104163649.121784-7-andrii@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
---
.../testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/align.c | 38 ++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/align.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/align.c
index de27a29af270..8baebb41541d 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/align.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/align.c
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
#include <test_progs.h>
#define MAX_INSNS 512
-#define MAX_MATCHES 16
+#define MAX_MATCHES 24
struct bpf_reg_match {
unsigned int line;
@@ -267,6 +267,7 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
*/
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_5, BPF_REG_2),
BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_5, BPF_REG_6),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_4, BPF_REG_5),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_5, 14),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_4, BPF_REG_5),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_4, 4),
@@ -280,6 +281,7 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_5, BPF_REG_2),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_5, 14),
BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_5, BPF_REG_6),
+ BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_4, BPF_REG_5),
BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_5, 4),
BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_5, BPF_REG_6),
BPF_MOV64_REG(BPF_REG_4, BPF_REG_5),
@@ -311,44 +313,52 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = {
{15, "R4=pkt(id=1,off=18,r=18,umax=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"},
{15, "R5=pkt(id=1,off=14,r=18,umax=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"},
/* Variable offset is added to R5 packet pointer,
- * resulting in auxiliary alignment of 4.
+ * resulting in auxiliary alignment of 4. To avoid BPF
+ * verifier's precision backtracking logging
+ * interfering we also have a no-op R4 = R5
+ * instruction to validate R5 state. We also check
+ * that R4 is what it should be in such case.
*/
- {17, "R5_w=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=0,umax=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"},
+ {18, "R4_w=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=0,umax=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"},
+ {18, "R5_w=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=0,umax=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"},
/* Constant offset is added to R5, resulting in
* reg->off of 14.
*/
- {18, "R5_w=pkt(id=2,off=14,r=0,umax=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"},
+ {19, "R5_w=pkt(id=2,off=14,r=0,umax=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"},
/* At the time the word size load is performed from R5,
* its total fixed offset is NET_IP_ALIGN + reg->off
* (14) which is 16. Then the variable offset is 4-byte
* aligned, so the total offset is 4-byte aligned and
* meets the load's requirements.
*/
- {23, "R4=pkt(id=2,off=18,r=18,umax=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"},
- {23, "R5=pkt(id=2,off=14,r=18,umax=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"},
+ {24, "R4=pkt(id=2,off=18,r=18,umax=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"},
+ {24, "R5=pkt(id=2,off=14,r=18,umax=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"},
/* Constant offset is added to R5 packet pointer,
* resulting in reg->off value of 14.
*/
- {25, "R5_w=pkt(off=14,r=8"},
+ {26, "R5_w=pkt(off=14,r=8"},
/* Variable offset is added to R5, resulting in a
- * variable offset of (4n).
+ * variable offset of (4n). See comment for insn #18
+ * for R4 = R5 trick.
*/
- {26, "R5_w=pkt(id=3,off=14,r=0,umax=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"},
+ {28, "R4_w=pkt(id=3,off=14,r=0,umax=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"},
+ {28, "R5_w=pkt(id=3,off=14,r=0,umax=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"},
/* Constant is added to R5 again, setting reg->off to 18. */
- {27, "R5_w=pkt(id=3,off=18,r=0,umax=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"},
+ {29, "R5_w=pkt(id=3,off=18,r=0,umax=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"},
/* And once more we add a variable; resulting var_off
* is still (4n), fixed offset is not changed.
* Also, we create a new reg->id.
*/
- {28, "R5_w=pkt(id=4,off=18,r=0,umax=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc)"},
+ {31, "R4_w=pkt(id=4,off=18,r=0,umax=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc)"},
+ {31, "R5_w=pkt(id=4,off=18,r=0,umax=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc)"},
/* At the time the word size load is performed from R5,
* its total fixed offset is NET_IP_ALIGN + reg->off (18)
* which is 20. Then the variable offset is (4n), so
* the total offset is 4-byte aligned and meets the
* load's requirements.
*/
- {33, "R4=pkt(id=4,off=22,r=22,umax=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc)"},
- {33, "R5=pkt(id=4,off=18,r=22,umax=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc)"},
+ {35, "R4=pkt(id=4,off=22,r=22,umax=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc)"},
+ {35, "R5=pkt(id=4,off=18,r=22,umax=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc)"},
},
},
{
@@ -681,6 +691,6 @@ void test_align(void)
if (!test__start_subtest(test->descr))
continue;
- CHECK_FAIL(do_test_single(test));
+ ASSERT_OK(do_test_single(test), test->descr);
}
}
--
2.41.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-24 12:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-24 12:42 [PATCH 6.1.y v2 0/6] BPF selftests fixes for 6.1 branch Eduard Zingerman
2023-07-24 12:42 ` [PATCH 6.1.y v2 1/6] bpf: allow precision tracking for programs with subprogs Eduard Zingerman
2024-06-25 7:28 ` Shung-Hsi Yu
2024-07-02 8:48 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2023-07-24 12:42 ` [PATCH 6.1.y v2 2/6] bpf: stop setting precise in current state Eduard Zingerman
2023-07-24 12:42 ` [PATCH 6.1.y v2 3/6] bpf: aggressively forget precise markings during state checkpointing Eduard Zingerman
2023-07-24 12:42 ` Eduard Zingerman [this message]
2023-07-24 12:42 ` [PATCH 6.1.y v2 5/6] selftests/bpf: Workaround verification failure for fexit_bpf2bpf/func_replace_return_code Eduard Zingerman
2023-07-24 12:42 ` [PATCH 6.1.y v2 6/6] selftests/bpf: Fix sk_assign on s390x Eduard Zingerman
2023-07-25 10:22 ` [PATCH 6.1.y v2 0/6] BPF selftests fixes for 6.1 branch Greg KH
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=20230724124223.1176479-5-eddyz87@gmail.com \
--to=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=luizcap@amazon.com \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=mykolal@fb.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yhs@fb.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