| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 16:41:44 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
To: Chema Gonzalez <chema@...keley.edu>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] net: filter: add slot overlapping test with
fully filled M[]
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Chema Gonzalez <chema@...keley.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:22 AM, Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com> wrote:
>> Also add a test for the scratch memory store that first fills
>> all slots and then sucessively reads all of them back adding
>> up to A, and eventually returning A. This and the previous
>> M[] test with alternating fill/spill will detect possible JIT
>> errors on M[].
>>
>> Suggested-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
>> Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
>> ---
>> lib/test_bpf.c | 75 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 74 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/test_bpf.c b/lib/test_bpf.c
>> index 3c4a1e3..2d0a0d1 100644
>> --- a/lib/test_bpf.c
>> +++ b/lib/test_bpf.c
>> @@ -1493,7 +1493,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
>> { },
>> },
>> { /* Mainly checking JIT here. */
>> - "M[]: STX + LDX",
>> + "M[]: alt STX + LDX",
>> .u.insns = {
>> BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX | BPF_IMM, 100),
>> BPF_STMT(BPF_STX, 0),
>> @@ -1582,6 +1582,79 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
>> { },
>> { { 0, 116 } },
>> },
>> + { /* Mainly checking JIT here. */
>> + "M[]: full STX + full LDX",
>> + .u.insns = {
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX | BPF_IMM, 0xbadfeedb),
> This is a nit: Could you please use numbers that are easily addable by
> a 2-legged computer? For example, you could add 0x00000001,
> 0x00000004, 0x00000010, 0x00000040, 0x00000100, ..., and then the
> addition should be 0x55555555.
Doing simple math will reduce quality of the test, since now this test is
not only checking M[] accesses, but also checks wrapping of 32-bit
arithmetic in interpreter and JITs as extra bonus.
Just take a look at div, mul, add tests.
They use crazy constants specifically to tests boundary conditions.
>
> -Chema
>
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_STX, 0),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX | BPF_IMM, 0xecabedae),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_STX, 1),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX | BPF_IMM, 0xafccfeaf),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_STX, 2),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX | BPF_IMM, 0xbffdcedc),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_STX, 3),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX | BPF_IMM, 0xfbbbdccb),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_STX, 4),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX | BPF_IMM, 0xfbabcbda),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_STX, 5),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX | BPF_IMM, 0xaedecbdb),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_STX, 6),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX | BPF_IMM, 0xadebbade),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_STX, 7),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX | BPF_IMM, 0xfcfcfaec),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_STX, 8),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX | BPF_IMM, 0xbcdddbdc),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_STX, 9),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX | BPF_IMM, 0xfeefdfac),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_STX, 10),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX | BPF_IMM, 0xcddcdeea),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_STX, 11),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX | BPF_IMM, 0xaccfaebb),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_STX, 12),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX | BPF_IMM, 0xbdcccdcf),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_STX, 13),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX | BPF_IMM, 0xaaedecde),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_STX, 14),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX | BPF_IMM, 0xfaeacdad),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_STX, 15),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM, 0),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_MISC | BPF_TXA, 0),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM, 1),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_ALU | BPF_ADD | BPF_X, 0),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM, 2),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_ALU | BPF_ADD | BPF_X, 0),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM, 3),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_ALU | BPF_ADD | BPF_X, 0),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM, 4),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_ALU | BPF_ADD | BPF_X, 0),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM, 5),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_ALU | BPF_ADD | BPF_X, 0),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM, 6),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_ALU | BPF_ADD | BPF_X, 0),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM, 7),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_ALU | BPF_ADD | BPF_X, 0),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM, 8),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_ALU | BPF_ADD | BPF_X, 0),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM, 9),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_ALU | BPF_ADD | BPF_X, 0),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM, 10),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_ALU | BPF_ADD | BPF_X, 0),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM, 11),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_ALU | BPF_ADD | BPF_X, 0),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM, 12),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_ALU | BPF_ADD | BPF_X, 0),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM, 13),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_ALU | BPF_ADD | BPF_X, 0),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM, 14),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_ALU | BPF_ADD | BPF_X, 0),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_LDX | BPF_MEM, 15),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_ALU | BPF_ADD | BPF_X, 0),
>> + BPF_STMT(BPF_RET | BPF_A, 0),
>> + },
>> + CLASSIC | FLAG_NO_DATA,
>> + { },
>> + { { 0, 0x2a5a5e5 } },
>> + },
>> };
>>
>> static struct net_device dev;
>> --
>> 1.7.11.7
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists