Hi,
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:23:15AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
From: Ovidiu Panait ovidiu.panait@windriver.com
From: Jean-Philippe Brucker jean-philippe@linaro.org
commit 3615bdf6d9b19db12b1589861609b4f1c6a8d303 upstream.
This shouldn't be backported to 4.19, because it adjusts the selftest due to commit b02709587ea3 ("bpf: Fix propagation of 32-bit signed bounds from 64-bit bounds."), which wasn't backported further than 5.9.
See [1] for the report about these BPF backports to v5.4, which we are still trying to unravel. Given how painful building the BPF tests used to be even on 5.4, I'd rather not do the same on 4.19!
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAPXMrf-C5XEUfOJd3GCtgtHOkc8DxDGbLxE5=GFmr+Py0z...
Thanks, Jean
The verifier trace changed following a bugfix. After checking the 64-bit sign, only the upper bit mask is known, not bit 31. Update the test accordingly.
Signed-off-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker jean-philippe@linaro.org Acked-by: John Fastabend john.fastabend@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov ast@kernel.org [OP: adjust for 4.19 selftests] Signed-off-by: Ovidiu Panait ovidiu.panait@windriver.com Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c @@ -475,10 +475,10 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = { */ {7, "R5=inv(id=0,smin_value=-9223372036854775806,smax_value=9223372036854775806,umin_value=2,umax_value=18446744073709551614,var_off=(0x2; 0xfffffffffffffffc)"}, /* Checked s>=0 */
{9, "R5=inv(id=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372034707292158,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fffffff7ffffffc)"},
{9, "R5=inv(id=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372036854775806,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc)"}, /* packet pointer + nonnegative (4n+2) */
{11, "R6_w=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372034707292158,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fffffff7ffffffc)"},{13, "R4=pkt(id=1,off=4,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372034707292158,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fffffff7ffffffc)"},
{11, "R6_w=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372036854775806,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc)"},{13, "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@@ -486,7 +486,7 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = { * So we did not get a 'range' on R6, and the access * attempt will fail. */
{15, "R6=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372034707292158,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fffffff7ffffffc)"},
{15, "R6=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372036854775806,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc)"},