All verifier selftests pass in qemu for x86-64 with this series applied: root@intel-x86-64:~# ./test_verifier ... #1093/p XDP pkt read, pkt_data <= pkt_meta', good access OK #1094/p XDP pkt read, pkt_data <= pkt_meta', corner case -1, bad access OK #1095/p XDP pkt read, pkt_data <= pkt_meta', bad access 2 OK #1096/p XDP pkt read, pkt_data <= pkt_meta', corner case, good access OK #1097/p XDP pkt read, pkt_data <= pkt_meta', corner case +1, good access OK Summary: 1611 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
Jakub Sitnicki (1): selftests/bpf: Extend verifier and bpf_sock tests for dst_port loads
Jean-Philippe Brucker (1): selftests/bpf: Fix "dubious pointer arithmetic" test
John Fastabend (2): bpf: Verifer, adjust_scalar_min_max_vals to always call update_reg_bounds() bpf: Test_verifier, #70 error message updates for 32-bit right shift
Stanislav Fomichev (1): selftests/bpf: Fix test_align verifier log patterns
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 1 + tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 3 +- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c | 41 +++++----- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds.c | 6 +- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/sock.c | 81 ++++++++++++++++++- 5 files changed, 104 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
From: John Fastabend john.fastabend@gmail.com
commit 294f2fc6da27620a506e6c050241655459ccd6bd upstream.
Currently, for all op verification we call __red_deduce_bounds() and __red_bound_offset() but we only call __update_reg_bounds() in bitwise ops. However, we could benefit from calling __update_reg_bounds() in BPF_ADD, BPF_SUB, and BPF_MUL cases as well.
For example, a register with state 'R1_w=invP0' when we subtract from it,
w1 -= 2
Before coerce we will now have an smin_value=S64_MIN, smax_value=U64_MAX and unsigned bounds umin_value=0, umax_value=U64_MAX. These will then be clamped to S32_MIN, U32_MAX values by coerce in the case of alu32 op as done in above example. However tnum will be a constant because the ALU op is done on a constant.
Without update_reg_bounds() we have a scenario where tnum is a const but our unsigned bounds do not reflect this. By calling update_reg_bounds after coerce to 32bit we further refine the umin_value to U64_MAX in the alu64 case or U32_MAX in the alu32 case above.
Signed-off-by: John Fastabend john.fastabend@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov ast@kernel.org Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/158507151689.15666.566796274289413203.stgit@john... Signed-off-by: Ovidiu Panait ovidiu.panait@windriver.com --- kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c index 34262d83dce1..f705d3752fe0 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c @@ -5083,6 +5083,7 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, coerce_reg_to_size(dst_reg, 4); }
+ __update_reg_bounds(dst_reg); __reg_deduce_bounds(dst_reg); __reg_bound_offset(dst_reg); return 0;
From: Jakub Sitnicki jakub@cloudflare.com
commit 8f50f16ff39dd4e2d43d1548ca66925652f8aff7 upstream.
Add coverage to the verifier tests and tests for reading bpf_sock fields to ensure that 32-bit, 16-bit, and 8-bit loads from dst_port field are allowed only at intended offsets and produce expected values.
While 16-bit and 8-bit access to dst_port field is straight-forward, 32-bit wide loads need be allowed and produce a zero-padded 16-bit value for backward compatibility.
Signed-off-by: Jakub Sitnicki jakub@cloudflare.com Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220130115518.213259-3-jakub@cloudflare.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov ast@kernel.org [OP: backport to 5.4: cherry-pick verifier changes only] Signed-off-by: Ovidiu Panait ovidiu.panait@windriver.com --- tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 3 +- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/sock.c | 81 ++++++++++++++++++++- 2 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h index 0bfad86ec960..cb0631098f91 100644 --- a/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h +++ b/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h @@ -3068,7 +3068,8 @@ struct bpf_sock { __u32 src_ip4; __u32 src_ip6[4]; __u32 src_port; /* host byte order */ - __u32 dst_port; /* network byte order */ + __be16 dst_port; /* network byte order */ + __u16 :16; /* zero padding */ __u32 dst_ip4; __u32 dst_ip6[4]; __u32 state; diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/sock.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/sock.c index 9ed192e14f5f..b2ce50bb935b 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/sock.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/sock.c @@ -121,7 +121,25 @@ .result = ACCEPT, }, { - "sk_fullsock(skb->sk): sk->dst_port [narrow load]", + "sk_fullsock(skb->sk): sk->dst_port [word load] (backward compatibility)", + .insns = { + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_1, offsetof(struct __sk_buff, sk)), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_1, 0, 2), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_sk_fullsock), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 2), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, offsetof(struct bpf_sock, dst_port)), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SKB, + .result = ACCEPT, +}, +{ + "sk_fullsock(skb->sk): sk->dst_port [half load]", .insns = { BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_1, offsetof(struct __sk_buff, sk)), BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_1, 0, 2), @@ -139,7 +157,64 @@ .result = ACCEPT, }, { - "sk_fullsock(skb->sk): sk->dst_port [load 2nd byte]", + "sk_fullsock(skb->sk): sk->dst_port [half load] (invalid)", + .insns = { + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_1, offsetof(struct __sk_buff, sk)), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_1, 0, 2), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_sk_fullsock), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 2), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_H, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, offsetof(struct bpf_sock, dst_port) + 2), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SKB, + .result = REJECT, + .errstr = "invalid sock access", +}, +{ + "sk_fullsock(skb->sk): sk->dst_port [byte load]", + .insns = { + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_1, offsetof(struct __sk_buff, sk)), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_1, 0, 2), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_sk_fullsock), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 2), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_0, offsetof(struct bpf_sock, dst_port)), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_2, BPF_REG_0, offsetof(struct bpf_sock, dst_port) + 1), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SKB, + .result = ACCEPT, +}, +{ + "sk_fullsock(skb->sk): sk->dst_port [byte load] (invalid)", + .insns = { + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_1, offsetof(struct __sk_buff, sk)), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_1, 0, 2), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + BPF_EMIT_CALL(BPF_FUNC_sk_fullsock), + BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 2), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, offsetof(struct bpf_sock, dst_port) + 2), + BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), + BPF_EXIT_INSN(), + }, + .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SKB, + .result = REJECT, + .errstr = "invalid sock access", +}, +{ + "sk_fullsock(skb->sk): past sk->dst_port [half load] (invalid)", .insns = { BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_DW, BPF_REG_1, BPF_REG_1, offsetof(struct __sk_buff, sk)), BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_1, 0, 2), @@ -149,7 +224,7 @@ BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JNE, BPF_REG_0, 0, 2), BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), - BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, offsetof(struct bpf_sock, dst_port) + 1), + BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_H, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, offsetofend(struct bpf_sock, dst_port)), BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), },
From: John Fastabend john.fastabend@gmail.com
commit aa131ed44ae1d76637f0dbec33cfcf9115af9bc3 upstream.
After changes to add update_reg_bounds after ALU ops and adding ALU32 bounds tracking the error message is changed in the 32-bit right shift tests.
Test "#70/u bounds check after 32-bit right shift with 64-bit input FAIL" now fails with,
Unexpected error message! EXP: R0 invalid mem access RES: func#0 @0
7: (b7) r1 = 2 8: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R1_w=invP2 R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm 8: (67) r1 <<= 31 9: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R1_w=invP4294967296 R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm 9: (74) w1 >>= 31 10: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R1_w=invP0 R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm 10: (14) w1 -= 2 11: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R1_w=invP4294967294 R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm 11: (0f) r0 += r1 math between map_value pointer and 4294967294 is not allowed
And test "#70/p bounds check after 32-bit right shift with 64-bit input FAIL" now fails with,
Unexpected error message! EXP: R0 invalid mem access RES: func#0 @0
7: (b7) r1 = 2 8: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R1_w=inv2 R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm 8: (67) r1 <<= 31 9: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R1_w=inv4294967296 R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm 9: (74) w1 >>= 31 10: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R1_w=inv0 R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm 10: (14) w1 -= 2 11: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8,imm=0) R1_w=inv4294967294 R10=fp0 fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm 11: (0f) r0 += r1 last_idx 11 first_idx 0 regs=2 stack=0 before 10: (14) w1 -= 2 regs=2 stack=0 before 9: (74) w1 >>= 31 regs=2 stack=0 before 8: (67) r1 <<= 31 regs=2 stack=0 before 7: (b7) r1 = 2 math between map_value pointer and 4294967294 is not allowed
Before this series we did not trip the "math between map_value pointer..." error because check_reg_sane_offset is never called in adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(). Instead we have a register state that looks like this at line 11*,
11: R0_w=map_value(id=0,off=0,ks=8,vs=8, smin_value=0,smax_value=0, umin_value=0,umax_value=0, var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) R1_w=invP(id=0, smin_value=0,smax_value=4294967295, umin_value=0,umax_value=4294967295, var_off=(0xfffffffe; 0x0)) R10=fp(id=0,off=0, smin_value=0,smax_value=0, umin_value=0,umax_value=0, var_off=(0x0; 0x0)) fp-8_w=mmmmmmmm 11: (0f) r0 += r1
In R1 'smin_val != smax_val' yet we have a tnum_const as seen by 'var_off(0xfffffffe; 0x0))' with a 0x0 mask. So we hit this check in adjust_ptr_min_max_vals()
if ((known && (smin_val != smax_val || umin_val != umax_val)) || smin_val > smax_val || umin_val > umax_val) { /* Taint dst register if offset had invalid bounds derived from * e.g. dead branches. */ __mark_reg_unknown(env, dst_reg); return 0; }
So we don't throw an error here and instead only throw an error later in the verification when the memory access is made.
The root cause in verifier without alu32 bounds tracking is having 'umin_value = 0' and 'umax_value = U64_MAX' from BPF_SUB which we set when 'umin_value < umax_val' here,
if (dst_reg->umin_value < umax_val) { /* Overflow possible, we know nothing */ dst_reg->umin_value = 0; dst_reg->umax_value = U64_MAX; } else { ...}
Later in adjust_calar_min_max_vals we previously did a coerce_reg_to_size() which will clamp the U64_MAX to U32_MAX by truncating to 32bits. But either way without a call to update_reg_bounds the less precise bounds tracking will fall out of the alu op verification.
After latest changes we now exit adjust_scalar_min_max_vals with the more precise umin value, due to zero extension propogating bounds from alu32 bounds into alu64 bounds and then calling update_reg_bounds. This then causes the verifier to trigger an earlier error and we get the error in the output above.
This patch updates tests to reflect new error message.
* I have a local patch to print entire verifier state regardless if we believe it is a constant so we can get a full picture of the state. Usually if tnum_is_const() then bounds are also smin=smax, etc. but this is not always true and is a bit subtle. Being able to see these states helps understand dataflow imo. Let me know if we want something similar upstream.
Signed-off-by: John Fastabend john.fastabend@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov ast@kernel.org Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/158507161475.15666.3061518385241144063.stgit@joh... Signed-off-by: Ovidiu Panait ovidiu.panait@windriver.com --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds.c | 6 ++---- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds.c index 92c02e4a1b62..313b345eddcc 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/bounds.c @@ -411,16 +411,14 @@ BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_RSH, BPF_REG_1, 31), /* r1 = 0xffff'fffe (NOT 0!) */ BPF_ALU32_IMM(BPF_SUB, BPF_REG_1, 2), - /* computes OOB pointer */ + /* error on computing OOB pointer */ BPF_ALU64_REG(BPF_ADD, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1), - /* OOB access */ - BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_B, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_0, 0), /* exit */ BPF_MOV64_IMM(BPF_REG_0, 0), BPF_EXIT_INSN(), }, .fixup_map_hash_8b = { 3 }, - .errstr = "R0 invalid mem access", + .errstr = "math between map_value pointer and 4294967294 is not allowed", .result = REJECT, }, {
From: Stanislav Fomichev sdf@google.com
commit 5366d2269139ba8eb6a906d73a0819947e3e4e0a upstream.
Commit 294f2fc6da27 ("bpf: Verifer, adjust_scalar_min_max_vals to always call update_reg_bounds()") changed the way verifier logs some of its state, adjust the test_align accordingly. Where possible, I tried to not copy-paste the entire log line and resorted to dropping the last closing brace instead.
Fixes: 294f2fc6da27 ("bpf: Verifer, adjust_scalar_min_max_vals to always call update_reg_bounds()") Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev sdf@google.com Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200515194904.229296-1-sdf@google.com Signed-off-by: Ovidiu Panait ovidiu.panait@windriver.com --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c | 41 ++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c index 0262f7b374f9..c9c9bdce9d6d 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c @@ -359,15 +359,15 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = { * is still (4n), fixed offset is not changed. * Also, we create a new reg->id. */ - {29, "R5_w=pkt(id=4,off=18,r=0,umax_value=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc))"}, + {29, "R5_w=pkt(id=4,off=18,r=0,umax_value=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_value=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc))"}, - {33, "R5=pkt(id=4,off=18,r=22,umax_value=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc))"}, + {33, "R4=pkt(id=4,off=22,r=22,umax_value=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc)"}, + {33, "R5=pkt(id=4,off=18,r=22,umax_value=2040,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc)"}, }, }, { @@ -410,15 +410,15 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = { /* Adding 14 makes R6 be (4n+2) */ {9, "R6_w=inv(id=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc))"}, /* Packet pointer has (4n+2) offset */ - {11, "R5_w=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc))"}, - {13, "R4=pkt(id=1,off=4,r=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc))"}, + {11, "R5_w=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc)"}, + {13, "R4=pkt(id=1,off=4,r=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc)"}, /* At the time the word size load is performed from R5, * its total fixed offset is NET_IP_ALIGN + reg->off (0) * which is 2. Then the variable offset is (4n+2), so * the total offset is 4-byte aligned and meets the * load's requirements. */ - {15, "R5=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=4,umin_value=14,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc))"}, + {15, "R5=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=4,umin_value=14,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc)"}, /* Newly read value in R6 was shifted left by 2, so has * known alignment of 4. */ @@ -426,15 +426,15 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = { /* Added (4n) to packet pointer's (4n+2) var_off, giving * another (4n+2). */ - {19, "R5_w=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=2054,var_off=(0x2; 0xffc))"}, - {21, "R4=pkt(id=2,off=4,r=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=2054,var_off=(0x2; 0xffc))"}, + {19, "R5_w=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=2054,var_off=(0x2; 0xffc)"}, + {21, "R4=pkt(id=2,off=4,r=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=2054,var_off=(0x2; 0xffc)"}, /* At the time the word size load is performed from R5, * its total fixed offset is NET_IP_ALIGN + reg->off (0) * which is 2. Then the variable offset is (4n+2), so * the total offset is 4-byte aligned and meets the * load's requirements. */ - {23, "R5=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=4,umin_value=14,umax_value=2054,var_off=(0x2; 0xffc))"}, + {23, "R5=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=4,umin_value=14,umax_value=2054,var_off=(0x2; 0xffc)"}, }, }, { @@ -469,16 +469,16 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = { .matches = { {4, "R5_w=pkt_end(id=0,off=0,imm=0)"}, /* (ptr - ptr) << 2 == unknown, (4n) */ - {6, "R5_w=inv(id=0,smax_value=9223372036854775804,umax_value=18446744073709551612,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffffffffffc))"}, + {6, "R5_w=inv(id=0,smax_value=9223372036854775804,umax_value=18446744073709551612,var_off=(0x0; 0xfffffffffffffffc)"}, /* (4n) + 14 == (4n+2). We blow our bounds, because * the add could overflow. */ - {7, "R5_w=inv(id=0,var_off=(0x2; 0xfffffffffffffffc))"}, + {7, "R5_w=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=9223372036854775806,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc))"}, + {9, "R5=inv(id=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372034707292158,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fffffff7ffffffc)"}, /* packet pointer + nonnegative (4n+2) */ - {11, "R6_w=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372036854775806,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc))"}, - {13, "R4_w=pkt(id=1,off=4,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372036854775806,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc))"}, + {11, "R6_w=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372034707292158,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fffffff7ffffffc)"}, + {13, "R4_w=pkt(id=1,off=4,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372034707292158,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fffffff7ffffffc)"}, /* 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_w=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372036854775806,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc))"}, + {15, "R6_w=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372034707292158,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fffffff7ffffffc)"}, } }, { @@ -528,7 +528,7 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = { /* New unknown value in R7 is (4n) */ {11, "R7_w=inv(id=0,umax_value=1020,var_off=(0x0; 0x3fc))"}, /* Subtracting it from R6 blows our unsigned bounds */ - {12, "R6=inv(id=0,smin_value=-1006,smax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0xfffffffffffffffc))"}, + {12, "R6=inv(id=0,smin_value=-1006,smax_value=1034,umin_value=2,umax_value=18446744073709551614,var_off=(0x2; 0xfffffffffffffffc)"}, /* Checked s>= 0 */ {14, "R6=inv(id=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc))"}, /* At the time the word size load is performed from R5, @@ -537,7 +537,8 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = { * the total offset is 4-byte aligned and meets the * load's requirements. */ - {20, "R5=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=4,umin_value=2,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc))"}, + {20, "R5=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=4,umin_value=2,umax_value=1034,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc)"}, + }, }, { @@ -579,18 +580,18 @@ static struct bpf_align_test tests[] = { /* Adding 14 makes R6 be (4n+2) */ {11, "R6_w=inv(id=0,umin_value=14,umax_value=74,var_off=(0x2; 0x7c))"}, /* Subtracting from packet pointer overflows ubounds */ - {13, "R5_w=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=8,umin_value=18446744073709551542,umax_value=18446744073709551602,var_off=(0xffffffffffffff82; 0x7c))"}, + {13, "R5_w=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=8,umin_value=18446744073709551542,umax_value=18446744073709551602,var_off=(0xffffffffffffff82; 0x7c)"}, /* New unknown value in R7 is (4n), >= 76 */ {15, "R7_w=inv(id=0,umin_value=76,umax_value=1096,var_off=(0x0; 0x7fc))"}, /* Adding it to packet pointer gives nice bounds again */ - {16, "R5_w=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=1082,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc))"}, + {16, "R5_w=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=1082,var_off=(0x2; 0xfffffffc)"}, /* At the time the word size load is performed from R5, * its total fixed offset is NET_IP_ALIGN + reg->off (0) * which is 2. Then the variable offset is (4n+2), so * the total offset is 4-byte aligned and meets the * load's requirements. */ - {20, "R5=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=4,umin_value=2,umax_value=1082,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fc))"}, + {20, "R5=pkt(id=2,off=0,r=4,umin_value=2,umax_value=1082,var_off=(0x2; 0xfffffffc)"}, }, }, };
From: Jean-Philippe Brucker jean-philippe@linaro.org
commit 3615bdf6d9b19db12b1589861609b4f1c6a8d303 upstream.
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 Signed-off-by: Ovidiu Panait ovidiu.panait@windriver.com --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_align.c index c9c9bdce9d6d..4b9a26caa2c2 100644 --- 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_w=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_w=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_w=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_w=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372034707292158,var_off=(0x2; 0x7fffffff7ffffffc)"}, + {15, "R6_w=pkt(id=1,off=0,r=0,umin_value=2,umax_value=9223372036854775806,var_off=(0x2; 0x7ffffffffffffffc)"}, } }, {
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Ovidiu Panait